Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Canagaradjou & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Department, Puducherry & Another – Respondents
C.R.P(NPD).Nos. 4160 & 4161 of 2018 & C.M.P.Nos. 22937 & 22939 of 2018 & C.M.P.Nos. 332, 339, 6246 & 6249 of 2019
Decided On : 04-06-2019
For the Petitioner:B. Kumar, SC, D. Ravicoumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Hema Sampath, SC, R. Chithiraputhiran, Advocate
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Sections 3(b),4(1) ,18(1) 30,and 31(2) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Challenge - Claim of Compensation - Lands measuring an extent of hectares and comprised in belonged to one - Petitioners herein and one are children of said - Said lands were acquired for construction of a paediatric hospital and after following procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act first respondent had passed an award holding that petitioners were rightful owners and that though apportionment and payment of compensation could be directly given by respondent respondent as per direction of High Court was to deposit entire compensation in Civil Court deposit under Section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act - Authority had arrived at a decision to award a total compensation of - Amount of compensation was arrived at by fixing value of land at per acre - Thereafter first respondent had referred matter under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act herein after called to Principal District Judge Pondicherry under and - Second respondent has been a party to all above proceedings - After matter was referred to District Court Pondicherry petitioners second respondent and deceased had filed a statement of claim asking for an enhanced compensation - Lands acquired had very good locational advantages - It was their case that property was a commercial property since adjacent properties were all used for commercial activities - A lodging facility east of lands acquired and there was also a big commercial complex and therefore area in and around acquired area was fully developed - Bus stand was hardly a kilo meter away - Whether respondent can be termed a person interested is yet another issue which has to be decided after Trial - Whether agreement in question could be termed as a champertous agreement - Whether agreements and was champertous is a question that has to be gone into by both parties letting in evidence - Held, Claimants approached claimant for promoting this property so that property could be put to some useful purpose - Claimant agreed promote property - It was only then property was taken delivery of by Government under Urban Land Ceiling Legislation - Later, Court view of Writ Petitions filed by first claimant proceedings initiated under Urban Land Ceiling Legislations was dropped and thereafter emergency provisions of Land Acquisition were invoked and property acquired - Claimant herein has been assisting other claimants in all proceedings before High Court spending his time and money and energy for conduct of various Writ Proceedings - Claimants are quite conscious of this and claimants agreed that claimant should be compensated for all pains he has taken in this regard - There was an agreement between first claimant on one hand and claimant on other with regard to apportionment of compensation. Such an agreement was entered into with full approval of claimants - As per agreement compensation amount that may be fixed by Land Acquisition Officer has to be shared between claimants in following manner - Claimants make it very clear that compensation that is fixed is not correct compensation and does not represent real market value of property - Steps will be taken for making a reference under Section 18 of Act - So far as compensation that is fixed by Land Acquisition Officer at this Stage of proceedings is concerned it is submitted that claimants have agreed to have compensation apportioned in following manner claimants are entitled to compensation amount - In this first claimant is entitled to share and claimants are entitled to share each - Any amount which is fixed in excess of this has to be taken by claimant absolutely - This is borne out by agreement which claimants have entered into - This is a binding agreement and claimants have approved of same - Claimants therefore pray that compensation amount may be paid to respective claimants as agreed between them and as mentioned above - In normal circumstances compensation amount should have been paid by Land Acquisition Officer himself here itself - But Court view of order of High Court compensation amount has been deposited before Land Acquisition Court and amount is kept in Civil Court Deposit - Petitions Stand Dismissed
(Prayer in C.R.P.No.4160 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the I.A.No.2074 of 2018 in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.4161 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the I.A.No.2073 of 2018 in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.)
The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed to strike off the interlocutory applications I.A.No.2073 of 2018 in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry and I.A.No.2074 of 2018 in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.
2. Before considering the revisions, it is necessary to briefly touch upon the facts which had culminated in the filing of the interlocutory applications by the second respondent herein and which is now sought to be struck off.
3. The lands measuring an extent of 3-62-00 hectares and comprised in RS.No.17/1 belonged to one Subramani Chettiar. The petitioners herein and one P.S.Krishnaraj are the children of the said Subramani Chettiar. The said lands were acquired for the construction of a paediatric hospital and after following the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, the first respondent had passed an award on 10.04.2000 holding that the petitioners were the rightful owners and that though the apportionment and payment of compensation could be directly given by the 1st respondent; the 1st respondent as per the direction of the High Court was to deposit the entire compensation in the Civil Court deposit under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The authority had arrived at a decision to award a total compensation of Rs.6,01,93,587.80/-. The amount of compensation was arrived at by fixing the value of the land at Rs.1,23,740/- per acre.
4. Thereafter, the first respondent had referred the matter under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, herein after called (The Act) to the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry under L.A.O.P No.3 of 2001 and L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2001. The second respondent has been a party to all the above proceedings. After the matter was referred to the District Court, Pondicherry, the petitioners, second respondent and the deceased P.S.Krishnaraj had filed a statement of claim asking for an enhanced compensation. The lands acquired had very good locational advantages. It was their case that the property was a commercial property since the adjacent properties were all used for commercial activities. There were showrooms for cars, two wheelers, etc. There was a hotel with a lodging facility east of the lands acquired and there was also a big commercial complex and therefore the area in and around acquired area was fully developed. The bus stand was hardly a kilo meter away.
5. The petitioners had filed L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2001 and deceased Krishnaraj alone had filed L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2001, since he was the owner of an extent of 0.10-0C hectors and 0-07-32 hectares in RS.17/1A and RS.No.17/1B/1 respectively of Redipalayam village.
6. It is worth mentioning that the second respondent was a party in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2001 as well as the award enquiries where he had been described as a person interested in the property.
7. The Principal District Judge by a common Judgment and decree dated 22.02.2002 was pleased to pass the following Judgment and Decree.
In L.A.O.P.No.3 of 2001, an enhanced compensation of Rs.12,25,06,715.80/- was awarded.
In L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2001, a sum of Rs.12,35,263.35/- was awarded as enhancement.
8. Challenging the said orders, the Land Acquisition Officer had filed A.S. Nos. 60 and 61 of 2002 on the file of this Court and this Court by a Judgment and decree dated 28.03.2016 were pleased to dismiss the appeals and the compensation was increased from a sum of Rs.312 per sq.ft to 580 per sq.ft. Thereafter the decree holders viz; the petition
