The court upheld the principle that the existence of a bona fide impression regarding alternate land entitlement justifies the delay in seeking enhanced compensation.

ORDER

The petitioners challenge the order of the fourth respondent dated

06.02.2019 and consequently seek reference of the petitioners' claim for enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, corresponding to Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 .

2.Admittedly, the lands of the petitioners were the subject matter of acquisition in 1976 and the compensation amount determined by the authorities is also deposited before the civil Court and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, under Section 30 of the Act passed orders in LAOP.No.21 of 1984 on 02/12/2010, entitling the petitioners to a sum of Rs.1,512/-. Subsequently, W.P.(MD) No.18245 of 2001 was filed before this Court, seeking release of the property from the acquisition proceedings, as according to the petitioners, the property of the petitioners was a house site and the same was kept vacant, despite acquisition.

3.This Court directed the representation of the writ petitioners'

father dated 04.10.2001 to be considered on merits. The petitioners' father thereafter sought for reconveyance and made an application. Once again, the petitioners' father filed W.P.(MD) No.34539 of 2002. This Court allowed the said writ petition, directing the representation of the petitioners' father for reconveyance to be considered, by order dated 06.09.2022. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in and by communication dated 10.12.2003 gave an option to the petitioners' father to select one house site out of 5 house sites in Rani Mangalam Colony at Dindigul Rural Scheme Part 1 and Part 2. The petitioners' father opted for H3/10-A, measuring 301 sq.ms., by his letter dated 02.01.2004. However, the authorities were not able to act on the said option exercised by the petitioners' father, since the said plot was already allotted to one John Kennedy, S/o Soosai Manickam. Therefore, the petitioners' father was asked to select one plot out of the remaining 4 plots. The petitioners' father opted for plot number M2/162 and in the meantime, the petitioners' father died on 27/07/2005.

4.The petitioners' mother sent a representation reiterating the request to allot plot No.M2/162. The petitioners' mother also died subsequently on 31.12.2006. Thereafter, the petitioners have sent a representation to the third respondent seeking allotment of plot No.M2/162. A writ petition was also filed in W.P.(MD) No.6135 of 2011 for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to allot the said plot.

5.In the said writ petition, the Housing Board filed a counter stating that the application of the petitioners' mother was under scrutiny and recording the said submission, this Court directed the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, to dispose of the petitioners' request for allotment of house plot as indicated in para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Housing Board, within a period of 8 weeks.

6.Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, by order dated

10.07.2017, rejected the request for allotment of alternate site citing lack of provisions in that regard. Immediately, the petitioners have opted to seek for enhanced compensation on 14.08.2017, since the allotment of any alternate land was ruled out. The said request for reference to the competent Civil Court for enhancement was rejected by the fourth respondent citing the delay.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the turn of events, there has been no inordinate, willful or wanton delay on the part of the petitioners in seeking enhanced compensation, since the petitioners and earlier their parents were under the bona fide impression that they would be getting alternate land and therefore there was no necessity for seeking enhanced compensation for the land acquisition proceedings initiated against their property.

8.I see force in the submissi