Rudhra Devi vs Competent Authority-cum-District Revenue Officer

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3067

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.Anand Venkatesh, J.
Rudhra Devi and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Competent Authority-cum-District Revenue Officer and ors. – Respondents
W.P(MD)Nos.14914 of 2020 and 24052 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD).No.12363 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD).No.21758 of 2018
Decided On : 22-07-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.M.Ajmal Khan for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For the Respondent:Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate, Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Standing Counsel

Headnote:
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 3 A (1),3D(1) and 3(G) – Land - Re-determination of compensation - Lands belonging to petitioners - In case of petitioners in W.P(MD), requisition was made by Highways Department to State Government for acquiring lands to lay by-pass road - Accordingly, Central Government through notification authorized District Revenue Officer, to be competent authority to perform functions under National Highways Act, 1956 - Accordingly, notification was published in Gazette under Section 3 A (1) of Act - Same was published in newspapers - Subsequent notification under Section 3 D (1) of Act was published and it was gazette - Thereafter the competent authority proceeded to initiate compensation proceedings under Section 3 G of Act and award was passed – Whether petitioners are entitled to benefits conferred under 2017 Guidelines issued by first respondent – Held, In considered view of this Court, this argument made on side of the respondents is not sustainable - Petitioners could not have sought for re-determination of compensation if not for the 2017 guidelines - Guidelines itself provides for re-determination of compensation if case falls under Clause 4.6(iii)(a)(b) - Writ petition was filed immediately in year 2018 after this guidelines came into effect - Petitioners cannot be non-suited on ground that they are trying to reopen award or that their claim is hit by laches - In view of discussion, there is no doubt in mind of this Court that the petitioners in W.P.(MD) are also entitled for re-determination of compensation in line with Clause 4.6 (iii) (b) of the 2017 guidelines since award amount has not been deposited by acquiring agency with CALA - Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed with directions - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

ORDER :

The issues involved in both the writ petitions are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have sought for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to re-determine the compensation as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 28.12.2017 and determine the compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act').

3. The lands belonging to the petitioners are situated at Oddanchatram village and Nelmudikarai Village respectively. In the case of the petitioners in W.P(MD).No.14914 of 2020, the requisition was made by the Highways Department to the State Government for acquiring lands to lay Oddanchatram by-pass road in Dindigul District. Accordingly, the Central Government through notification dated 17.07.2008, authorised the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul to be the competent authority to perform the functions under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). Accordingly, notification was published in the Gazette under Section 3 A (1) of the Act on 15.02.2012. The same was published in the newspapers on 05.04.2012. The subsequent notification under Section 3 D (1) of the Act was published on 31.08.2012 and it was gazetted on 06.09.2012. Thereafter the competent authority proceeded to initiate compensation proceedings under Section 3 G of the Act and the award was passed on 30.12.2013.

4. Insofar as the petitioners in W.P.(MD).No.24052 of 2018 is concerned, the Gazette notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act was published on 29.03.2012 and it was published in the local daily on 01.06.2012. Thereafter the Gazette notification under Section 3D(1) of the Act was published on 02.01.2013 and it was published in the local daily on 23.02.2013. Thereafter, the award proceedings were conducted under Section 3(G) of the Act and the competent authority passed the award on 23.08.2014.

5. The common ground that has been taken by the petitioners is that no amount was deposited before the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) before 31.12.2014. Therefore, according to the petitioners, on the coming into force of the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 28.12.2017, they are entitled for determination of compensation under the 'New Act' as per Clause 4.6 (iii)(a)(b). Hence the present writ petitions have been filed for a direction to the respondents to re-determine the compensation under the 'New Act' and to pay the same to the petitioners.

6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in both the writ petitions. A stand has been taken to the effect that the State Government had followed their own procedure in depositing the compensation amount before the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA). A Further stand has been taken to the effect that the petitioners are not entitled for the re- determination of compensation and at the best, the petitioners can only file an application before the Arbitrator (District Collector) under Section 3 G(5) of the Act and claim for enhancement of compensation.

7. Insofar as the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(MD).No.24052 of 2018 is concerned, the Special District Revenue Officer has taken a stand that the compensation amount has been deposited in the respective Bank as on 30.11.2014 and a sum of Rs.3,75,85,580/-(Rupees Three crores seventy five lakhs eighty five thousand five hundred and eighty only) was available in the CALA account. Therefore, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit under the 2017 guidelines issued by the Government of India.

8. Insofar as the Highways Department is concerned, they have filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(MD).No.14914 of 2020 to the effect that the entire amount pertaining to Oddanchatram village was ava

Click Here to Read the rest of this document