Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
G. Srinivasan and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 37498 to 37501, 43809 to 43813 of 2016, W.P. Nos. 1661 to 1665, 6223, 1730 of 2017 and W.M.P. Nos. 32124, 32125, 32127, 32128, 32130, 32131, 32133, 32134, 37615, 37616, 37618, 37619, 37621, 37622, 37623, 37624, 37625, 37627, 37628 of 2016, 5012 to 5016, 1631 to 1640, 6718, 6719, 1696 to 1698 of 2017
Decided On : 21-12-2018
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) ,6,9(3),10,11,11-A,17(1) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section24(1)(a) and 25,64 - Right to Fair Compensation Act (new Act) - Sections 3(g), 40(5), 40(3), 114(2) - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6 - Challenge - Issuing specific directions outlining parameters for Settlement talks - State of Tamil Nadu conceived a plan to de-congest road traffic in Chennai and came into existence Mass Rapid Transit System - It was originally intended to be done in four phases - First phase between Chennai Beach to Thirumayilai covering a distance of kms - It was commissioned in and completed in year - Phase-II project was to cover a distance of kms - From Thirumayilai to Velacherry - Original Scheme was conceived vide Housing and Urban Development Department - In due course alignment as envisaged in Housing and Urban Development Department was amended and a fresh Notification in Housing and Urban Development Department came be to issued - Vide Housing and Urban Development Department administrative sanction too was accorded - This was followed by Government issuing a Notification for compulsory acquisition of land under emergent provisions provided in Section 17(1) read with Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act - One Ekambaram others challenged this Notification in - This Petition came to be dismissed - Thereafter Government came up with a Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act - Even as this Declaration was issued Petitioners in had preferred an Appeal - This Appeal was taken up by this Court along with a batch of Writ Petitions challenging Housing and Urban Development Department Housing and Urban Development Department and with a consequential direction for implementing project as per Original Housing and Urban Development Department - This batch of cases came to be dismissed - Arguments advanced on core point leads this Court to an interpretative quagmire and not towards an ultimate solution where peace may come to inhabit - Any interpretation of law invariably becomes an invitation to further litigations which does not augur well for legal system - No matter how many times Petitioners might have approached Courts to litigate no matter number of times Authorities may have passed Awards ultimately legal system is only attending to issues arising out of a single Land Acquisition involving same property and same set of litigants - Should not legal system be relieved of same subject appearing in multiple forms in different points of time? Should not countrymen be redeemed of their hopelessness of expecting return on their investment? - Did they not know that Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act had come into operation? Did they not know that Section 24(1)(a) of said Act provides that in all cases where Awards have not been passed under old Act Awards should be passed under the Right to Fair Compensation Act? It is now not so much about whether they knew it or not for operation of Statute does not depend on knowledge of Authorities about statute - They ought to know and therefore they should know - There is in display an utter lack of professionalism in ignoring a critical factor that directly affects discharge of Statutory responsibility namely commencement of Right to Fair Compensation Act - What puzzles this Court is why despite this Courts direction to issue Notices under Right to Fair Compensation Act in its Order in connected batch Notices were again wrongly issued under Old Act - It should not be forgotten which this Court was informed during arguments that there would be an annual cost escalation of about for every years delay in concluding project? Who pays this differential cost occurred due to such escalation? Arent Court People of this country pay? And are Court not called upon to pay for lapses of unprofessional Authorities? Whether Awards now impugned have been passed within a reasonable time since disposal of? In between Courts have stepped in batch and but issue before Court was on correctness of provision under which notice for passing Awards were issued - Held, Special Tahsildar MRTS Phase-II Extension Chennai has passed Draft/Interim Award and while arriving at quantum of Interim Compensation Special Tahsildar adopted provisions of old Act and for that purpose has relied upon Revenue which he/she is under mandate to follow - Para of said Government Order would state among other things that Interim Compensation should be determined based on procedures already in vogue subject to additional compensation being paid as per Right to Fair Compensation Act - In considered opinion of Court in terms of Section 114(2) of new Act Land Acquisition proceedings already initiated under old Act by invoking emergency provision is saved and admittedly no Award under Section 11 of Act has been passed and new Act came into force - Before taking possession Collector including Deputy Collector and any other Officer specially designated by Government to perform functions of Collector defined under Section 3(g) of new Act is bound to follow Section 40(3) of new Act and thereafter he is under mandate to follow Section 40(5) and other provisions relating to rehabilitation and resettlement - It became evident that many among Petitioners have reconciled to idea that Acquisition proceedings cannot be averted or avoided even if they were to taste success in ongoing proceedings - This implied that contentious point could only be quantum of Compensation - This was aided by fact that same Respondent has passed two different Awards at two different points of time but based on two different market prices - Respondents have made a fair statement that reducing market value of property from earlier per sq ft to present per sq ft requires a re-look but were seen agreeable to grant to Petitioners such benefits that they would be statutorily entitled Repeal and Saving - Land Acquisition Act is hereby repealed - Save as otherwise provided in this Act repeal under sub-section (1) shall not be to prejudice or affect legal application of Section 6 of General Clauses Act with regard to effect of repeals - Writ Petitions Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
N. Seshasayee, J.
1. This Order has two parts, but the division is more an artificiality since the second part is essentially a continuation of the first. What separates them is an attempt at mediated Settlement and the Second part became necessary as the Mediation is reported to have failed. And, the Order will not be complete unless the contents of the Order of this Court dated 4.10.2018, up to the point of issuing specific directions outlining the parameters for Settlement talks, also forms part to this Order to provide continuity. Accordingly, Part I contains Paragraphs 1 to 10, lifted straight from the Order dated 4.10.2018, and the rest constitutes Part II.
Part I
1.1. What is in challenge in this batch of cases is the Land Acquisition proceedings for MRTS Phase-II Extension Project from Velacherry to St. Thomas Mount covering a distance of about 5 km. About 98% of the work covering a distance of 4.5 km. is stated to have been completed, and what remains to be completed is about 0.5 km. which involved acquisition of Private Lands, and this forms the subject matter of this proceedings.
1.2. This controversy is not unfamiliar to this Court, nor are the Petitioners new visitors in its corridors. And, it must be recorded that the anxiety of the Petitioners to save their lands from acquisition has met its match in the attitude of the Respondents, which ranged anywhere from being lackadaisical to being indifferent, if the sporadic acts of seriousness in taking the project forward is ignored. The result: A dispute that ought to have concluded at least three years ago has become a nursery for litigations. Strong lines they may be for opening an Order, but this Court considers them as essentially just.
2. Factually, the litigants/Petitioners here travel on the same track for a substantial distance, and towards the end, they branch out. There are in effect three batch of Petitioners, and all their lands are involved in the same Acquisition proceedings. And, this is the fourth round of litigation in which they are involved in. In this batch of cases they chiefly challenge the Acquisition proceedings on the ground that they have all been statutorily lapsed. The difference between them however, is unrelated to this common ground of challenge but on the point of taking possession of their properties, or they participating in the enquiry preceding the passing of the Awards. This may be tabulated:
W.P. Nos. If possession taken
? = Yes
x = No Participation in the Award enquiry*
? = Yes
x = No
W.P. No.1661 of 2017
to
W.P. No.1665 of 2017 ? X
W.P. No.43809 of 2016
To
W.P. No.43813 of 2016 x ?
W.P. No.37498 of 2016
to
W.P. Nos.37501 of 2016
W.P. No.6223 of 2017 & W.P. No.1730 of 2017 x x
*The reasons for non-participation is stated in the narration below.
3. The facts on the basis of which the Petitioners project a cause for their respective actions presently is founded on another sequence of facts. They may now be stated:
• The State of Tamil Nadu conceived a plan to de-congest the road traffic in Chennai, and thus came into existence the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS). It was originally intended to be done in four phases. The first phase between Chennai Beach to Thirumayilai covering a distance of 8.55 kms. It was commissioned in 1983 and completed in the year 1997. The Phase-II of the project was to cover a distance of 11.75 kms. from Thirumayilai to Velacherry. The original Scheme was conceived vide G.O.Ms. 343, Housing and Urban Development [UD3 (2)], Department, dated 20.12.2006. In due course, the alignment as envisaged in G.O.Ms. 343, Housing and Urban Development [UD3 (2)] Department, was amended and a fresh Notification in G.O.Ms. 274, Housing and Urban Development [UD3 (2)] Department, dated 29.11.2010 came be to issued. And, vide G.O.Ms. 14, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 14.1.2008, administrative sanction too was accorded. This was followed by the Government issuing a Notification for the compulsory acquisition of land und
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
