The revised award passed after the expiry of two years from the date of Declaration was deemed to be a fresh award, and the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 11-A of Act, 1894. The compensation was directed to be determined under Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent dated 29.03.2012 in proceeding PRC No.B1/1645/2012 and consequent Award No.1/2012 dated 31.07.2012 and consequent revised Award No.1/2014 dated 30.05.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent and pending on the file of the 5th respondent, quash the same holding that the Land Acquisition proceedings have lapsed and in any event direct the respondents 2 and 3 to apply the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, to the impugned land acquisition proceedings relating to the scheduled mentioned land of the petitioners including for the purpose of determination of compensation.)

1. Seven parcels of land, as mentioned in the schedule annexed to the writ petition, purportedly belonging to the petitioners, were sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishment of a power sub-station at the behest of the 4th respondent by issuance of notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act, 1894’) vide G.O. Ms. No.72 dated 7.9.2011 for acquisition of lands at Ilayanallur Village, Katpadi Talui, Vellore. The said lands were acquired for the establishment of 765/400 KV sub-station at Tiruvalam. The said acquisition was initiated by invoking the urgency provision u/s 17 of Act, 1894.

2. It is averred by the petitioners that a total extent of 42.88.5 hectares of land was sought to be acquired on the basis of the requisition made by the 4th respondent on 19.5.10 and the 1st respondent waited for over 15 months before issuing an order sanctioning the acquisition, by invoking the urgency clause u/s 17 (1) of Act, 1894. It is further averred by the petitioners that by issuing the notification u/s 4 (1) on 7.9.11, possession was taken on 25.12.12. It is further averred by the petitioner that invocation of Section 17 (1) is only for the purpose of dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act, 1894, which clearly shows that the act of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust and in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. It is the further averment of the petitioner that even the compensation awarded by the 3rd respondent was much less than the market value and inspite of the petitioner producing adequate materials to show the price of lands in the neighbourhood even during the year 2009, however, a paltry sum of Rs.56,800/- per acre had been fixed, though the market value of the property in the year 2012, even though in the year 2009 itself, the value was hovering around Rs.16 Lakhs per acre. It is the further averment of the petitioners that though they agreed to receive the compensation under protest, but the compensation was not tendered to a majority of the land owners, including the petitioner.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that at the rate of Rs.56,800/- per acre fixed and computed 80% of the compensation as payable in terms of Section 17 (3-A) of the Act, 1894 and based on the said award passed in Award No.1/2012, dated 31.7.2012, reference was made by the 3rd respondent to the Court vide proceeding dated 22.10.2012.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that while the 3rd respondent confirmed the date of taking possession vide proceeding dated 22.10.2012 and also the reasons for deposit, however, the compensation amount had not been deposited on the date of reference as mandated u/s 31 of Act, 1894. Pending the reference, which stood completed, vide proceeding dated 30.5.2014, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned revised award. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the reason for the revised award, as has been stated by the 3rd respondent, being the fact that the Court, upon examination of the award had found that 12% above the market value had not been calculated fro