A legal heir is entitled to claimed compensation based on promises made by land acquisition authorities, regardless of significant delay, emphasizing principles of equity and promissory estoppel.

JUDGMENT :

N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No. 16646 of 2015, dated 06.02.2020, the State has preferred the above Writ Appeal.

2. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner/respondent that the property in S.No. 44/1 in Ottanchathiram Village measuring to an extent of 1 acre and 45 cents originally belonged to her mother, Anjalai Ammal. The said property was acquired by the Government in the year 1989 by Award No.1 of 1992, dated 24.04.1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, in which, the respondent's mother's property has been arrived as Item No.7. The Writ Petitioner/respondent's mother had claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per cent as compensation. However, the said claim was referred to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT for enhanced of compensation.

3. It is the further case of the Writ Petitioner/respondent that her mother died on 29.12.2006 leaving behind her as her only legal heir and therefore, the Writ Petitioner/respondent claimed that she is entitled for all the claims over the subject property. The Writ Petitioner/respondent contended that as per the Award No.1 of 1992, the adjacent land owners, whose lands were also acquired and as per Section 18 Reference, the Subordinate Court, Palani, which is the Land Acquisition Tribunal, in L.A.O.P.Nos.2 to 6 of 1998, by award, dated 19.12.2012, has fixed the enhanced compensation as Rs.7,500/- per cent. As the claim made by the adjacent land owners was answered as Rs.7,500/- per cent, the Writ Petitioner/respondent contended that she also stands in the same footing and entitled for the same as awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.Nos.2 to 6 of 1998, dated 19.12.2012. Hence, she has issued legal notices to the appellants dated 20.06.2015 and 07.08.2015 and as the same was not considered by the authorities, the respondent herein has filed the above Writ Petition.

4. By order, dated 06.02.2020, after referring the entire proceedings of land acquisition and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the learned Single Judge had referred the reference made by Acquisition Officer, which is extracted hereunder:

“The land owner also insists for the payment of compensation for the lands under acquisition at Rs.10,000/- per cent. Though the rate of compensation is not reflecting the actual price prevailing in this area, yet according to the provisions of the Act, her claim will be referred to the competent Civil Court U/S 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT (ie) for enhanced compensation.”

5. The Writ Court by relying upon Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT had considered the principles of equity, where respondent stands on par with the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.2 to 6 of 1998, and held that “an award is a promise made to the Writ Petitioner/respondent and therefore, the appellants/respondents by their conduct made the Writ petitioner/respondent to believe that request for higher compensation would be referred to the civil Court in terms of Section 18 of the Act” and further directed that the said compensation amount shall be paid within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

6. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General contended that an award was passed on 24.04.1992 in Award No.1 of 1992 and the respondent had made a representation only in the year 2015, ie., after a lapse of 23 years from the date of award. The learned Additional Advocate General drew our attention to Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , which mandates that the claimant should file a written application within a period of six weeks, if he/she is aggrieved by the award proceedings, whereas, the Writ Petitioner/respondent had made a representation after a lapse of 23 years and the inordinate delay without any explanation is contrary to the Act cannot be acted upon.

7. The learned Additional Advocate G