IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.07.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI W.A. No.2313 of 2018 A. Jagadesan Appellant v

1 The District Collector Collectorate Sathuvacheri Vellore 632 009

2 The Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Sub Collector Tirupattur 635 601 Vellore District

3 The Divisional Engineer (H) NABARD – Rural Roads Division No.8 Natteri Krishnamachari Street Vellore 632 001

4 The Secretary to Government Highways & Minor Ports Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009

5 The Divisional Engineer (H)

Construction and Maintenance Vaniyambadi Division Vellore District

6 The District Collector Tirupattur Respondents (R6 impleaded suo motu by order dated

08.03.2023 passed in W.A. No.2313 of 2018.)

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 20.07.2018 passed in W.P. No.2325 of 2018.

For appellant Mr. K. Elango For respondents Mrs. Geetha Thamaraiselvan Special Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

For the sake of convenience and to avoid verbosity, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in this writ appeal.

2 The facts in brief leading to the filing of this writ appeal are as under:

2.1 In 1979, vast extent of lands in Markethiyanur Village, including the appellant's land, was acquired for the purpose of forming and improving road from Matrapalli to Javadu Hills under the Tamil Nadu Tribes Development Scheme.

2.2 Seeking compensation for the acquisition of his land, the appellant addressed a representation dated 22.12.2017 and finding no response thereto, he preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.2325 of 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to pay compensation with interest, along with other statutory benefits, till the date of such payment, for his piece of land in S.No.353/1 measuring 0.04.0 hectare in the aforesaid village, in the light of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (Central Act 30/2013), (for brevity “the Amended Act”), based on his aforesaid representation.

2.3 The main ground canvassed in the aforesaid writ petition was that for the said acquisition made, neither award was passed nor compensation was paid to the land owners, including him.

2.4 The Single Bench, on the short and sole ground of laches, inasmuch as the appellant had addressed the representation seeking compensation nearly after four decades and followed it up by filing the writ petition, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 20.07.2018.

2.5 Calling into question the legality and validity of the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Single Bench, this writ appeal has been filed.

3 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

4 According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the counter affidavit filed before the Single Bench by the second respondent in the month of March 2018, it has been specifically stated that since the Divisional Engineer (Highways), Tribal Welfare Scheme, had already formed the road, proposals were under process to settle the compensation to the aggrieved land owners under private negotiation. But, according to the learned counsel, the Single Bench, without considering the said counter affidavit, has dismissed the writ petition. In other words, according to the learned counsel, since it has been admitted in the counter affidavit that the appellant is entitled to compensation, the appellant ought to have been paid compensation under Section 24(2) of the Amended Act.

5 Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained, since the appellant is not entitled to compensation under Section 24(2) of the Amended Act.

6 During the pendency of this writ appeal, the District Collector, Tirupathur, the si