Madras High Court
K.Ramayammal vs The Special District Revenue Officer / on 30 July, 2024
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 15..07..2024
Orders Pronounced on : 30..07..2024
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.4921 of 2024
and
W.M.P.No.5397 of 2024
K.Ramayammal
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Special District Revenue Officer /
Land Acquisition Officer,
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, 68/136,
K.Gangai Street,
Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem 636 005.
2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Tiruppur.
3.The Additional Chief Secretary /
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary, Highways Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
5.R.Kavitha,
Special District Revenue Officer /
Land Acquisition Officer,
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, 68/136,
K.Gangai Street, Nedunchalai Nagar,
Salem 636 005.
6.The Project Director,
TN Road Sector Project-II,
Chennai 600 002.
..... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India, praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned award in Roc.No.189/2021/A2, dated 21.04.2022 [actually served
on the petitioner on 21.05.2023] passed by the 1st respondent in respect of the
petitioner's lands having an extent of 441 square meters situated in S.No.698/6,
[Now S.No.698/6B] in Periyapuliyur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District,
acquired by the 1st respondent and to quash the same and for a consequential
direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh Award truly in accordance with the
mandate of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to pay the
petitioner, the award amount so passed afresh along with appropriate interest in
accordance with the said and compounding the same for every 6months period
after a year of taking possession, till date of payment, after deducting the
amount already paid to the petitioner within a period to be specified by this
court and also for a direction to the 4th respondent to initiate appropriate
disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the 5th respondent and others
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
whose names not known to the petitioner who are party to the passing of the
impugned Award.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramaniyan
For Respondent (s) : Mr.U.Baranidaran,
Additional Government Pleader
for RR1 to 4 & 6
ORDER
This writ petition mainly challenges the Award passed by the 1st
respondent in Roc.No.189/2021/A2, dated 21.04.2022 fixing compensation for
the land acquired from the petitioner for the purpose of four lanning of
Gopichettipalayam – Chithode (SH-15).
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition, in brief, are
as follows: –
(i) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the agricultural lands
measuring an extent of 1.50 Acres comprised in S.No.698/6 of Periyapuliyur
Village. The 1st respondent issued a notice on 27.11.2024 under Section 15(2)
of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 [TN Act 34 of 2022] proposing to
acquire a portion of land measuring an 364 square meters for four lanning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
Gopichettipalayam – Chithode (SH-15) out of total extent of Acre 1.50 cents of
land owned by the petitioner. The said notification was published in Dinamani
Newspaper on 03.12.2014. As the land was sought to be acquired for public
purpose for widening of highways, the petitioner did not choose to object the
acquisition proceedings and the petitioner was interested in getting
compensation for the land acquired from her. The 1st respondent assured a fair
compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 [ for short “the
RECTLARR Act, 2013”]
(ii) Thereafter, notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
dated 10.07.2019 declaring that the land measuring an extent of 441 square
meters would be acquired for the intended purpose. The extent of land sought
to be acquired was increased from 364 square meters to 441 square meters in
the notice issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act.
(iii) No notification under Section 15(2) was issued in respect of 77
square meters of land which was sought to be acquired in addition to 364
square meters for which section 15(2) notification was originally issued. The
petitioner made representations on 05.03.2020, 09.09.2020, 14.09.2020 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
21.10.2020 to the respondents objecting to the said illegalities. The
respondents informed that compensation would be paid for the entire 441
square meters as per the RECTLARR, 2013.
(iv) Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 25.08.2020 to
hold an award enquiry on 09.09.2020 under Section 19(5) of the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act. The petitioner attended the award enquiry held on 09.09.2020
and produced all the land ownership documents to the 1 st respondent and the
same were duly acknowledged by the 1st respondent. The petitioner also
handed over her representation objecting to the acquisition of 441 square
meters of land instead of an extent of 364 square meters for which notification
under Section 15(2) was originally issued. The petitioner also produced
documents to show that house sites situated behind his land were sold for
Rs.1,500 to Rs.2500/- per square feet depending upon the location of plots and
requested the 1st respondent to adopt such rate. The market value in the open
market is much more than Rs.2,500/- per square feet. However, the materials
produced by the petitioner were not at all taken into consideration by the 1st
respondent for arriving at the market value as compensation for the acquired
land.
(v) The 1st respondent fixed the market value at Rs.1080/- per square
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
meter for the adjoining land (house sites) and whereas for the petitioner’s land
which is also house site the 1st respondent fixed the market value only at
Rs.694.13 per square meter. The petitioner made several representations,
however, without furnishing any document, the 1st respondent transferred a sum
of Rs.10,24,371/- to the petitioner’s bank account on 29.04.2022. He made a
representation on 17.05.2022 pointing out that he was paid compensation based
on the lesser market value and whereas the adjacent land owners were paid
compensation calculating the market value at Rs.1080 per square meters. He
also requested a copy of the award under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
(vi) Pursuant to the application under RTI Act, the petitioner was
furnished with a copy of the award dated 21.04.2022 through the letter of
the1st respondent dated 25.01.2023. The award does not disclose the date of
award, date of taking possession, etc., and without such particulars, the
petitioner could not ensure the correctness of the award.
(vii) Section 26(1) of the RECTLARR Act, 2013, mandates to take
highest value out of the market value arrived at based on various methods, such
as (i) market value if any specified in Indian Stamp Act for registration of sale
in the area of the acquired lands, as per Section 26(1)(a); (ii) the average sale
price of similar type of lands situated in the nearest village / nearest vicinity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
area as per Section 26(1)(b); (iii) if it is not possible to work out the market
value based on the above two methods, the State shall fix a floor / minimum
price per square meter based on the sale price occurred in the immediate
adjoining areas as per Section 26(3). The 1st respondent did not follow the said
mandates and instead, simply adopted a rate on her own and the award does not
state as to how the 1st respondent had arrived at Rs.694.13 per square meter as
market value. There is no detail found in the award as to how an amount of
Rs.9,86,891/- has been worked out and similarly on what basis interest amount
of Rs.37,480/- was calculated. The award contains a false statement regarding
award enquiry. The award proceeds as if the petitioner was not present during
award enquiry on 09.09.2020 and in fact, the petitioner attended the award
enquiry on 09.09.2020 and handed over the documents to prove her ownership
to the acquired land. Therefore, the statement of fact that the award was passed
on 03.08.2020 is blatantly false.
(viii) Before passing the award the provisions in the RECTLARR Act,
2013, have not been followed. Notice under Section 15(2) was published on
03.12.2014 and whereas notice under Section 15(1) was published only on
10.07.2019, after 5 years and award was passed on 21.04.2022, i.e., 3 years
thereafter. The date of passing award could be three months prior to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
payment i.e., on 29.01.2022, the declaration under Section 15(1) should date
back two years earlier i.e., 29.04.2019. Therefore, the court should direct the 4th
respondent to take into account the said date to work out the compensation
taking into consideration the market values prevailed as on 29.04.2019 and
pass award fixing adequate compensation as per the RECTLARR Act, 2013.
(ix) That apart, the petitioner should be adequately compensated for the
period from 03.12.2014 to the deemed date of Section 15(2) notice, during
which the lands of the petitioner were illegally occupied. The statute itself
provides for 12% interest from Section 15(2) notice for such period.
(x) As the entire award is against the statutory principles, this court could
set aside the same invoking its writ jurisdiction and direct the authorities to
rework the compensation by complying with the mandatory provisions of law.
3.1 The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition
and inter alia contending that by G.O.Ms.112, Highways and Minor Ports
(NH2) Department, dated 19.09.2014, the Government of Tamil accorded
administrative sanction for the four lanning of Gobichettipalayam – Chithode
Rroad (SH-15) km 123/0 to 153/6. Originally an extent of 364 square meters of
land comprised in S.No.698/6 of Periyapuliyur village was sought to be
acquired from the petitioner for the purpose of widening of four lane stretch in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
SH-15 under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and Section 15(2) notice was
issued on 27.11.2014.
3.2. Thereafter, notice under Section 15(1) was issued on 10.07.2019
declaring the acquisition of the land belonged to the petitioner. As no objection
was received from the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated
25.08.2020 for award enquiry asking the petitioner to appear for enquiry on
09.09.2020 as per section 19(5) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. The
petitioner was directed to bring all the documents relating to ownership of the
land and hand over the same to the 1st respondent at the time of enquiry.
Opportunities were given to the petitioner to show her consent or willingness
as per law. Thereafter, a private negotiation was held with the land owners on
14.11.2019 by fixing the land value as 2.75 times higher than the guideline
value. The land owners have not accepted the land value so fixed. Hence,
permission was requested under Section 19(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways
Act from the Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Land
Administration, Chennai to determine the compensation under Section 19(6).
The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Land Administration by
letter dated 31.12.2019 in Lr.No.H2/28202/2019 accorded permission and the
Government decided to acquire the land with compensation to be determined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
under the provisions of Section 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013.
3.3. The 1st respondent found that there were 2781 sales registered
between 04.12.2011 and 03.12.2014 and the same were used to ascertain the
market value of the acquired land based on the market value guidelines. Out of
165 sales, 43 sales were taken up for consideration, 12 sales were discarded as
the sale price is too high or too low and the remaining 31 sales were taken up
for consideration and calculating the average sale price to top 16 sales (highest
50%) were selected. The average sale price at Rs.541.09 per square meter is
higher than the guideline value of Rs.540/- per square meter. However, the sale
price arrived at in segment – I, Annexure III-B was adopted. The market value
for the land comprised in SF No.698/6B was determined as per the provisions
of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as Rs.694.13 per square meter.
3.4. The details of amount of compensation fixed and payable to the
owner of the land are as under: –
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024Sl. No. Subject Details
1 1 District 1 Erode
2 Taluk 2 Bhavani
3 Village 3 Periyapuliyur
2 Survey No. 698/6 (Now sub-divided as 698/6B)
3 Extent of Acquisition 441 square meters
4 Value of the land per Rs.694.13
square meter
5 Land Cost Rs.3,06,111.33
6 Multiplied Land Cost by Rs.3,82,639.16
1.25
7 Value of the building Rs. – Nil –
8 Value of the trees Rs. – Nil –
9 Total (6 + 7 + 8) Rs.3,82,639.16
10 100% Solatium Rs.3,82,639.16
11 12% Additional Value for Rs.2,21,612.23
2204 days
12 Total compensation Rs.9,86,890.55
13 Rounded (to Rupees) Rs.9,86,891/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eight
Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-
One only)
3.5. The compensation amount of Rs.10,24,371/- arrived at for the land
acquired from the petitioner was transferred from the account of the Special
District Revenue Officer (LA), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem to
the Bank account of the petitioner on 29.04.2022. The 1st respondent has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
forwarded the representation of the petitioner dated 17.05.2022 and 24.05.202
requesting for enhancement of compensation to the Principal District Judge,
Erode. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
3.6. As per the REFCTLARR Act, 2013, a representation seeking
determination of amount of compensation shall be made within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the award. As the copy of the award
was received by the petitioner on 25.01.2023, she could have approached the
appropriate forum of law within the time limit prescribed therefor. The
determination of market value under Section 26 of the RECTLARR Act, 2013
and 12% interest as mandated under Section 30(3) of the Act was not adopted
by the LAO. The 1st respondent (LAO) had submitted the representations of
the landowners for enhancement of compensation to the Principal District
Judge for necessary orders. The 1st respondent is ready to obey any order
passed in any forum of law regarding payment of interest at 12% as mandated
under section 26 of the Act.
4.1. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st
respondent inter alia stating that pendency of L.A.O.P.No.211 of 2023 cannot
be a bar to maintain the present writ petition. The issues raised in the writ
petition cannot be gone into by the reference court. Originally, 364 square
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
meters of land were proposed to be acquired. Subsequently, 77 square meter
was added and for that no notice under Section 15(2) was issued and served on
her. The 1st respondent simply issued errata to Section 15(2) notice already
issued for the acquisition of 77 square meters of land. The errata issued cannot
be considered for any purpose. The petitioner was not even served a copy of
errata. Therefore, this court can only go into the issue of proper date for
Section 15(2) notice notionally to reckon the market value and corresponding
award date to reckon interest payable under Section 30(3) and Section 80 of the
RECTLARR Act, 2013. The said issue also cannot be gone into by the
reference court.
4.2. The LAO has not taken into consideration the potential value of the
petitioner’s land which is abetting the State Highway. The identical lands
developed as house sites were sold at Rs.584.25 per square meter in 2011,
Rs.695.51 per square meter in 2012, Rs.2131 per square meter in 2014, and
Rs.3171.95 per square meter in 2020. The market value shall be taken based on
the mortgaged values taken for the year 2019,2020 and 2021 for the house sites
available on the adjoining survey field and while fixing the market value for
the subject land which is commercial land, its potential value has to be taken
into account. The alleged 2781 sale statistics gathered from the registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
department have no relevance as the same were based on guideline values. The
1st respondent (LAO) has not furnished any calculation sheet before passing the
award to show based on which such calculation was arrived at by her.
5. Heard Mr.N.Subrmaniyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, learned
Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6.
6.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would at the outset,
strenuously submit that the entire acquisition proceeding is vitiated for having
not followed the mandatory procedures contained in the RECTLARR Act,
2013.
6.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner would make his submissions
elaborately as under: –
(i) Originally a notification under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001 was issued on 27.11.2014 proposing to acquire the
petitioner’s land only to an extent of 364 square meters out of Acre 1.50 cents
for the purpose of four lanning Gopichettipalayam – Chithode (SH-15) and
paper publication was also effected to that effect on 03.12.2014 and
04.12.2014. Considering the public purpose for which the land was sought to
be acquired, the petitioner did not make any objection for the acquisition. and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024notification under Section 15(1) was issued on 10.07.2019 declaring the
acquisition of the land belonged to the petitioner.
(ii) Thereafter, on 14.11.2018, a newspaper publication was made in the
form of errata amending the earlier publications dated 03.12.2014 and
04.12.2014 informing that 441 square meters instead of 364 square meters of
land belonging to the petitioner would be acquired for the intended purpose.
The petitioner objected to the same and sought reasons for the enhanced land
acquisition, however, there was no response from the petitioner.
(iii) While so, this court by order dated 03.07.2019 in W.P.No.22448 of
2018, this court was pleased to declare the provisions in respect of the land
acquisition contained in the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 void on and from
27.09.2023 by operation of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.
(iv) Only thereafter, Notification under Section 15(1) was issued on
10.07.2019 for acquisition of 441 square meters instead of 364 which was
actually proposed to be acquired by notification under Section 15(2) and no
notice was served on the petitioner for acquisition of additional land of 77
square meters of land preceding the newspaper publications and no opportunity
was given to make her objection and no order under Section 15(3) was passed.
The petitioner was served with notice only for acquiring 364 square meters of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
land out of Acre 1.50 cents.
(v) While so, Tamil Nadu Act No.38/2019 was enacted to revive the
operation of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 with respect land acquisition
which the assent of the President on 02.12.2019 and by Act 38 of 2019, all the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 except the provisions
relating to the determination of compensation, stand revived with effect on and
from 26.09.2013. Thus, the provision in Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001 which provided for determination of compensation has
not been revived by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 2019.
(vi) Only thereafter, an award enquiry under Section 19(5) was
conducted on 09.09.2020 and the petitioner attended the enquiry and handed
over the requisite documents to establish her title which was in fact
acknowledged by the respondents. Thus, when the provision in Section 19(5)
became void on and from 27.09.2013, the award enquiry held under the
repealed provision has become void.
(vii) There is an unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than six
years between the notification under Section 15(2) and Notification under
Section 15(1). Further, the award under section 19(1) was passed with an
unreasonable and unexplained delay of three years, although there is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
mandatory provision contained under the RECTLARR Act, 2013 that the
award should be passed within a period of six months. Thus, the petitioner was
deprived of her right to enjoy her property as guaranteed under Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India.
(viii) The petitioner was also not served with a copy of the award. The
award was passed under Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001
which has already been invalidated on and from 27.09.2013 and therefore, the
award is vitiated for want of jurisdiction and competence.
(ix) When the provisions in the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 relating
to the land acquisition except provisions for determination of compensation
were declared as lapsed and the provisions of the RECTLARR Act, 2013, have
not been scrupulously followed, either the entire land acquisition proceedings
has to be declared as vitiated or the petitioner has to be compensated
adequately for the same by advancing the date on which the market value is to
be reckoned as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6.3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would lastly submit that the
award date has to be the date for determining the market value for the entire
land of 441 square meters acquired from the petitioner and to calculate the
statutory benefits under the RECTLARR Act, 2013, the date of initial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
Notification under Section 15(2) dated 27.11.2014 for 364 square meters and to
calculate the statutory benefits in respect of the remaining 77 square meters of
land, the subsequent notification by way of errata dated 14.11.2018 have to be
taken into consideration and such statutory benefits have to be reckoned till the
date of award i.e., on 21.04.2022.
6.4 In the view of this court, it would be more relevant to make a note
that the Award was passed on 15.12.2020 and the proceedings which the
petitioner mistook for award was a proceeding regarding disbursement of
amount of compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents 1 to 4 would contend as follows:
(i) The award amount had already been transferred to the account of the
petitioner. During the award enquiry, the petitioner did not make any
objections and the representation given by the petitioner seeking determination
of compensation has already been forwarded to the learned Principal District
Judge, Erode. When the amount of compensation had already been paid to the
petitioner and reference for enhancement compensation was also made to the
Principal District Judge concerned, the writ petition is not at all maintainable
and it is for the petitioner to work out her remedy in respect of enhanced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024compensation and other statutory benefits and interest before the reference
court.
(ii) The writ petition mainly proceeded on the factual aspects that while
determining the amount of compensation for the acquired lands, different
market values had been adopted for the lands acquired from the neighbouring
land owners and whereas for the petitioner’s land which is a commercial site
and abetting the highway and has got potential value had not been considered
by the LAO. Those things cannot be decided by the writ court and it is always
open for the petitioner to agitate those contentions before the reference court in
the pending reference for enhancement of compensation and for other statutory
benefits.
(iii) Though under Section 15(2) Notification originally 364 out of Acre
1.50 Cents was sought to be acquired on noticing that there was an error crept
in inadvertently with respect to the extent actually required to be acquired from
the petitioner, an errata notification under Section 15(2) was issued on
14.11.2008 expressing the intention to acquire 441 square meters of land and as
the petitioner did not make any objection for the acquisition of land,
notification under Section 15(1) was issued on 10.07.2019 and as a sequel, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
lands acquired from the petitioner stand vested in the government under
Section 16 of the Act.
(iv) Thereafter, LAO sent an enquiry notice on 14.11.2019 under Section
19(2) for enquiry under Section 19(5). The petitioner participated in the
enquiry and submitted her written statement of defence during the award
enquiry held on 09.09.2020. Thereafter, the LAO determined the fair
compensation of Rs.10,24,371/- as per Section 26 of the the RECTLARR Act,
2013, by taking into account the market value guidelines collected from the
registering authorities at Rs.694.13 paise per square meter and applying the
multiplier for the land cost. Besides, the LAO awarded 100% solatium and
12% additional market value from the date of publication of notice under
Section 15(2) till date of award on 15.12.2020. The amount of compensation
was deposited into the account of the petitioner on 21.04.2022.
(v) The Award under reference in Award No.136 of 2020 was passed on
15.12.2020 and the award was not passed on 21.04.2022 as contended by the
petitioner and the proceedings referred to by the petitioner was not the award
proceedings and it was a proceeding issued by the LAO regarding
disbursement of the amount of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
(vi) Additional compensation was awarded for the land acquired from
the petitioner from 04.12.214, the date of publication of 15(2) notification to
15.12.2020, the date of award for 2197 days and therefore, there could be no
infirmities attached to the award. The petitioner cannot contend that she should
have been paid additional compensation from 04.12.2014 to 21.04.2022. The
petitioner, as already stated above, misconstrued the proceedings (dated
21.04.2022) relating to disbursement of compensation amount for award as if it
was an award.
(vii) There is no express provision in the Tamil Nadu Highways Act,
2001 prescribing time limit for publication of award and therefore, the
petitioner cannot take advantage of such delay to contend that the entire
acquisition proceedings is vitiated on the ground of such delay.
(viii) The petitioner neither challenged the notification dated 10.07.2019
issued under Section 15(1) nor award dated 15.12.2020. What is challenged in
the writ petition is only a communication of the 1st respondent with respect to
disbursement of amount of compensation.
8. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
9. This court has considered the rival submissions and perused the entire
materials placed before the court carefully.
10. At the outset, this court is unable to countenance the arguments
advanced by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the writ petition
does not challenge the award and what is challenged in the writ petition was a
proceedings of the 1st respondent in respect of disbursement of the amount of
compensation. The entire pleadings in the writ petition would show that the
petitioner challenged the award enquiry proceedings and the award. The
petitioner’s land was acquired for public purpose and she has to be
compensated adequately. On mere technicality, she cannot be non-suited.
11. The 1st respondent not disputed the fact that, a notification under
Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 was issued on
27.11.2014 originally proposing to acquire only an extent of 364 square meter
out of Acre 1.50 cents comprised in S.No.698/6 of Periyapuliyur from the
petitioner and paper publications were effected on 03.12.2014 and 04.12.2014;
while so, on noticing that there had been an error in the measurement with
respect to the extent sought to be acquired, on 14.11.2018, the acquisitioning
authority issued an Errata Notification dated 14.11.2008 by way of paper
publication under Section 15(2) to the original Notification published in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
newspaper on 03.12.2014 and 04.12.2014; thereafter, on 10.07.2019, the
acquisitioning authority issued a notification under Section 15(1) in respect of
acquisition of total extent of 441 square meters of land from the petitioner.
However, as admitted by the respondents, no notice under Section 15(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 was served on the petitioner.
12. It is relevant to note here that, in the meanwhile, a writ petition was
filed in W.P.No.22448 of 2018 [Caritas India v. Union of India] mainly
challenging The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act)
2014 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2015) as ultra vires Article 14 of The Constitution
of India and the Principal Act, namely The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013
(Act 30 of 2013) and a Division Bench of this court by order dated 03.07.2019
applying the doctrine of repugnancy held that provisions in the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001 relating to land acquisition are void under Article 254(2)
of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu have
enacted Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation,
Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 2019) to revive
the operation of (i) the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
Schemes Act, 1978; (ii) the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial
Purposes Act, 1997; and (iii) the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Part III of
Act 38 of 2019 reads as under:-
PART – III
Tamil Nadu (1) All the provisions of the Tamil Revival of
Act Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu operation of
34 of 2019 Tamil Nadu Act,
Act 34 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as 34 of 2022
the 2002 Act), except the provisions
relating to the determination of
compensation, shall stand revived with
effect on and from the 26th day of
September 2013.
(2) All rules, notifications, notices,
orders, directions issued or any other
proceedings initiated under the 2002 Act,
except those relating to determination of
compensation, which were in force
immediately before the 26th day of
September 2013 shall, for all purposes, be
deemed to have been revived on and from
the 26th day of September 2013.
Central Act (3) The provisions relating to the
30 of 2013 determination of compensation as
specified in the First Schedule,
rehabilitation and resettlement as
specified in the Second Schedule and
infrastructure amenities as specified in the
Third Schedule to the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of
2013) shall apply to the land acquisition
proceedings under the 2002 Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
Central Act 11- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, Central Act 30 of
30 of 2013 the provisions of the Right to Fair 2013 not to apply
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of
2013) shall cease to apply to any land
which is required for the purpose
specified in sub-section (1) of section 15 of
the 2002 Act and any such land shall be
acquired by the Government only in
accordance with the provisions of the 2002
Act.
12. Section 68 of the 2002 Act shall be Omission of
omitted section 68 of 2002
Act
13. Notwithstanding anything contained Validation
in any judgment, decree or order of any
court, the provisions of the 2002 Act,
except the provisions relating to
determination of compensation, shall be
deemed to have been in force in all
material times during the period
commencing on the 26th day of
September 2013 and ending with the date
of publication of this Act in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette, and anything
done or any action taken under the 2002
Act, except those relating to determination
of compensation shall be deemed to have
been validly done or taken under the 2002
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
13. The above provisions would go to show that except provisions
relating to the determination of compensation, all other provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, stood revived with effect on and from
26.09.2013. Similarly, all rules, notifications, notices, orders, directions
issued or any other proceedings initiated under the 2002 Act, except those
relating to determination of compensation, which were in force
immediately before the 26th day of September, 2013 shall, for all purposes,
be deemed to have been revived on and from the 26 th day of September,
2013. Thus, it is very clear that by enacting the Validation Act except the
matters relating to determination of compensation, all other acts and
notifications issued stood revived on and from 26.09.2013.
14. In this case, as already stated above, Notification under section 15(2)
was issued on 27.11.2124 proposing to acquire only 364 square meters of land.
Thereafter, an Errata was issued on 14.11.2018 by way of newspaper
publication amending 15(2) notification which was published in the
newspapers on 03.12.2014 and 04.12.2014 proposing that 77 square meters of
land in addition to 364 square meters in all 441 square meters of land would be
acquired from the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
15. It is relevant to note that as far as acquisition of additional extent of
77 square meters of land is concerned, as mandated under the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001, no notice under Section 15(2) was ever issued by the
LAO to the petitioner, except issuing a publication of an errata notification,
which was stated to be published in the newspaper on 14.11.2018. This aspect
of the matter was not denied by the 1st respondent in the counter affidavit.
16. .Now, coming to the Award, according to the 1 st respondent, the
Award in the instant case was passed on 15.12.2020. It is the specific stand of
the 1st respondent that as far as the land comprised in S.No.698/6B is
concerned, an extent of 441 square meter was in possession and enjoyment of
the petitioner and on behalf of the petitioner, her son appeared for award
enquiry and presented an objection relating to the acquisition of petitioner’s
land covered under the Notifications issued under sections 15(2) and 15(1) and
not made any statement and produced any official documents. Therefore,
according to the 1st respondent, award was passed in accordance with law and
amount of compensation for the land acquired from the petitioner was directed
to be deposited in the separate account of the Special District Revenue Officer
(LA) until the land owner appeared for enquiry and produce the documents to
prove the ownership of the petitioner over the acquired land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
17. Coming to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in
Roc.No.189/2021/A2, dated 21.04.2022, according to the acquisition authority,
though the petitioner’s son appeared for the award inquiry, he did not give any
statements or produce any documents. Whereas the petitioner’s case is that she
herself present during the award enquiry and produced all relevant documents
to prove her right and ownership over the acquired land. Based on those title
documents only, amount of compensation was ordered to be released in her
favour.
18. Though in the award dated 15.12.2020 it was stated that neither the
petitioner appeared for enquiry nor did she produce any document, such a
statement in the view of this court ex facie runs contrary to the fact, on
09.09.2020 itself the petitioner had given a written application for
determination of compensation along with relevant documents in support of her
claim with regard to market value guidelines, which was acknowledged by the
authorities. Therefore, the very finding made in the award that no document
was produced and the petitioner did not appear for award inquiry is factually
incorrect. Despite having received a written objection along with all relevant
documents, the 1st respondent did not advert to the objections of the petitioner
submitted on 09.09.2020 and award was passed on 15.12.2020 on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
that no document was produced by the petitioner. This itself would indicate
that the mandatory provisions of the RECTLARR Act, 2013, were not at all
followed by the LAO at the time of passing the award.
19. Now, the only contention of the official respondents is that since the
award amount had already been transferred to the bank account of the
petitioner and the written objection submitted by the petitioner for
determination of compensation has been referred to the Principal District
Judge, Erode, the writ petition is not at all maintainable.
20. No doubt, if a person chooses to challenge an award on factual
aspects, it is for him to canvass all such contentions only before the reference
court. However, when statutory authorities had abdicated their responsibilities
and not followed the mandatory procedures and just for the sake of passing
award, issued a notice to the petitioner for award enquiry and without adverting
to the objections and documents produced by the petitioner in support of her
claim for enhancement of compensation, this court, being a writ court, cannot
shut its doors and relegate the aggrieved to the reference court.
21. It is relevant to note that as far as determination of amount of
compensation is concerned, though a notification was issued on 27.11.2014
under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, during which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
time, the provisions in the said Act relating to the land acquisition were not in
force, all the provisions in the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 relating to the
land acquisition except the provisions relating to the determination of
compensation stood revived latter and therefore, while arriving at the
compensation and awarding interest, the mandatory provisions contained in the
RECTLARR Act, 2013 ought to have been necessarily followed by the 1st
respondent. When the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 was repealed on and
from 27.09.2013 by operation of law, although it was thereafter revived,
compensation has to be determined only in tune with the procedures
contemplated under the RECTLARR Act, 2013.
22. Therefore, insofar as determination of compensation is concerned,
the provisions in the RECTLARR Act, 2013, alone have to be followed in
view of the Tamil Nadu Revalidation Act 38 of 2019. Sections 26 to 30 and 69
of the RECTLARR Act, 2013, alone shall be applicable for determination of
compensation in respect of the lands sought to be acquired from the petitioner
under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. As per Section 26 of the
RECTLARR Act, 2013, the date for determination of market value shall be the
date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11 of the Act
which depends upon the period within which the declaration under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
19(7) has been issued. If there is a delay for more than 12 months from the date
of notification under Section 11, in issuing declaration under Section 19(7) of
the RECTLARR Act, 2013, then then entire land acquisition proceedings
would get lapsed and fresh notification has to be issued.
23. The provision in Section 25 of the RECTLARR Act, 2013 also
mandates that award shall be passed by the Collector within a period of twelve
months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if
no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition
of the land shall lapse.
24. Further, as per Section 26 of the RECTLARR Act, 2013,
determination of market value by the Collector shall be depending upon the
delay in issuing the declaration under Section 19(7) of the RECTLARR Act,
2013 and delay, if any, in issuing the Award under Section 26 of the
RECTLARR Act, 2013.
25. Thus, this court is of the view that time limit fixed under the
RECTLARR Act, 2013 for passing the Award is applicable to the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions in The Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001. Further, notification issued under Section 15(1) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
31 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, after a delay of more than five years would
make the entire land acquisition proceedings gets lapsed.
26. Further, as already noticed, no notice under Section 15(2) for
acquiring the additional extent of 77 square meters of land from the petitioner
preceding the paper publication dated 14.11.2018 in the form of errata
notification, amending the earlier notification dated 27.11.2024 issued Section
15(1) Notification and published on 03.12.2014 and 04.12.2014. On this score
also, the entire land acquisition proceedings culminated into an Award dated
15.12.2020 would automatically get lapsed.
27. As there are substantial irregularities and illegalities in following the
mandatory provisions regarding land acquisition as well as determination of
compensation and the award was not passed within 12 months as mandated
under Section 26 of the RECTLARR Act, 2013 and there is delay in passing
the award in respect of acquisition relating to 364 square meters, notification
under Section 15(2) would also get lapsed.
28. That apart, Award copy was also not furnished to the petitioner
immediately. The respondents were not able to produce any material before this
court to disprove the contention of the petitioner that he was not served with a
copy of the award immediately.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
29. Now, the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Roc.No.189/2021/A2,
dated 21.04.2022, a copy of which was produced in the typed set of papers,
would show that the 1st respondent recorded as if before passing the award, no
document was produced, this court, already found that such statement found to
be factually incorrect. Therefore, now, it cannot be said that the award was
passed after hearing the petitioner.
30. Merely because a reference was made to the reference court, it cannot
be said that the writ petition is not at all maintainable. When the award itself
was made against the very statutory provisions and procedures, how, the
reference court could go into award and determine the compensation. Though
the award came to be passed on 15.12.2020, a copy of the same was not
furnished to the petitioner immediately as per Section 30 of the RECTLARR
Act, 2013.
31. Furthermore, the parameters set out in Section 28 of the RECTLARR
Act, 2013, have not been followed by the LAO while determinging the award.
Similarly, the criteria set out in Section 26 of the RECTLARR, 2013 to assess
and determine the market value of the land have also not been adopted by the
LAO.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
33 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
32. The award proceeded as if for determining the market value for the
land acquired from the petitioner, only one sale had been taken up for
consideration out of 117 sales. It was stated in the award that average sale price
of Rs.694.13 per square meter was higher than the guideline value of Rs.540/-,
the sale price of Rs.694.13 per square meter was fixed as the land value for this
group of lands. There was no reason assigned in the Award, as to how the sale
was taken as market value. When the market value for the adjoining land was
fixed at Rs.1080/- per square feet which has got less potential value, the
reasons also not properly given in the award. The interest was also not ordered
as per Section 80 of the RECTLARR Act, 2013 as seen from the Award.
Therefore, the entire award passed was not in accordance with the mandatory
provisions in the RECTRLARR Act, 2013 and therefore, the same cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
33. In the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another vs.
Bimal Kumar Shah and other [2024 SCC OnLine SC 968 : 2024 (3) MLJ
552], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 26, 27, 28, 30, 30.1 to 30.6 has held as
follows:-
“26. The constitutional discourse on compulsory
acquisitions, has hitherto, rooted itself within the ‘power ofeminent domain’. Even within that articulation, the twin
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
conditions of the acquisition being for a public purpose and
subjecting the divestiture to the payment of compensation in
lieu of acquisition were mandated. Although not explicitly
contained in Article 300A, these twin requirements have been
read in and inferred as necessary conditions for compulsory
deprivation to afford protection to the individuals who are being
divested of property. A post-colonial reading of the
Constitution cannot limit itself to these components alone. The
binary reading of the constitutional right to property must give
way to more meaningful renditions, where the larger right to
property is seen as comprising intersecting sub-rights, each
with a distinct character but interconnected to constitute the
whole. These sub-rights weave themselves into each other,
and as a consequence, State action or the legislation that
results in the deprivation of private property must be measured
against this constitutional net as a whole, and not just one or
many of its strands.
27. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this
swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right to property?
Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive.
These are : i) duty of the State to inform the person that it
intends to acquire his property – the right to notice, ii) the duty
of the State to hear objections to the acquisition – the right to
be heard, iii) the duty of the State to inform the person of its
decision to acquire – the right to a reasoned decision, iv) the
duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for
public purpose – the duty to acquire only for public purpose, v)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
35 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
the duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate – the right of
restitution or fair compensation, vi) the duty of the State to
conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within
prescribed timelines of the proceedings – the right to an
efficient and expeditious process, and vii) final conclusion of
the proceedings leading to vesting – the right of conclusion.
28. These seven rights are foundational components of
a law that is tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one of
these or some of them would render the law susceptible to
challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T.
Plantations (supra) declares that the law envisaged under
Article 300A must be in line with the overarching principles of
rule of law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of
course, precedentially sound to describe some of these sub-
rights as ‘procedural’, a nomenclature that often tends to
undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These
seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the
real content of the right to property under Article 300A, non-
compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being
without the authority of law.
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …… …..
….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …… …..
30. Following are the seven principles:
30.1. The Right to notice : (i) A prior notice informing
the bearer of the right that the State intends to deprive them of
the right to property is a right in itself; a linear extension of the
right to know embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
36 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024does not contemplate acquisition by ambush. The notice to
acquire must be clear, cogent and meaningful. Some of the
statutes reflect this right.
(ii) Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 11 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3A of
the National Highways Act, 1956 are examples of such
statutory incorporation of the right to notice before initiation of
the land acquisition proceedings.
(iii) In a large number of decisions, our constitutional
courts have independently recognised the right to notice
before any process of acquisition is commenced.
30.2. The Right to be heard: (i) Following the right to a
meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is the right
of the property-bearer to communicate his objections and
concerns to the authority acquiring the property. This right to
be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful
and not a sham.
(ii) Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 15 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Section 3C of
the National Highways Act, 1956, are some statutory
embodiments of this right.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
37 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
(iii) Judicial opinions recognizing the importance of this
right are far too many to reproduce. Suffice to say that that the
enquiry in which a land holder would raise his objection is not a
mere formality.
30.3. The Right to a reasoned decision : i) That the
authorities have heard and considered the objections is
evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is incumbent upon
the authority to take an informed decision and communicate
the same to the objector.
(ii) Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Section 3(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 19 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3D of
the National Highways Act, 1956, are the statutory
incorporations of this principle.
(iii) Highlighting the importance of the declaration of the
decision to acquire, the Courts have held that the declaration
is mandatory, failing which, the acquisition proceedings will
cease to have effect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
38 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
30.4. The Duty to acquire only for public purpose: (i)
That the acquisition must be for a public purpose is inherent
and an important fetter on the discretion of the authorities to
acquire. This requirement, which conditions the purpose of
acquisition must stand to reason with the larger constitutional
goals of a welfare state and distributive justice.
(ii) Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Sections 3(1) and 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952,
Sections 2(1), 11(1),15(1)(b) and 19(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 3A(1)
of the National Highways Act, 1956 depict the statutory
incorporation of the public purpose requirement of compulsory
acquisition.
(iii) The decision of compulsory acquisition of land is
subject to judicial review and the Court will examine and
determine whether the acquisition is related to public purpose.
If the court arrives at a conclusion that that there is no public
purpose involved in the acquisition, the entire process can be
set-aside. This Court has time and again reiterated the
importance of the underlying objective of acquisition of land by
the State to be for a public purpose.
30.5. The Right of restitution or fair compensation: (i)
A person’s right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to
the constitutional right under Article 300A. Deprivation or
extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
39 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or
other similar means. Compensation has always been
considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition.
(ii) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 23 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and
Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 are
the statutory incorporations of the right to restitute a person
whose land has been compulsorily acquired.
(iii) Our courts have not only considered that
compensation is necessary, but have also held that a fair and
reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any
acquisition process.
30.6. The Right to an efficient and expeditious
process: (i) The acquisition process is traumatic for more than
one reason. The administrative delays in identifying the land,
conducting the enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading
to a final declaration, consume time and energy. Further,
passing of the award, payment of compensation and taking
over the possession are equally time consuming. It is
necessary for the administration to be efficient in concluding
the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must
necessarily form part of Article 300A.
(ii) Sections 5A(1), 6, 11A, and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 6(1A) and 9 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
40 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1952, Sections 4(2), 7(4), 7(5), 11(5), 14, 15(1), 16(1), 19(2),
25, 38(1), 60(4), 64 and 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and Sections 3C(1), 3D(3) and 3E(1)
of the National Highways Act, 1956, prescribe for statutory
frameworks for the completion of individual steps in the
process of acquisition of land within stipulated timelines.
(iii) On multiple occasions, upon failure to adhere to the
timelines specified in law, the courts have set aside the
acquisition proceedings.
30.7. The Right of conclusion: (i) Upon conclusion of
process of acquisition and payment of compensation, the State
takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The
culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of
compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical
possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition
is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after
the normal procedures of acquisition, the private holding is
divested and the right, title and interest in the property, along-
with possession is vested in the State. Without final vesting,
the State’s, or its beneficiary’s right, title and interest in the
property is inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The
obligation to conclude and complete the process of acquisition
is also part of Article 300A.
ii) Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Sections 4 and 5 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
41 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
Immovable Property Act, 1952, Sections 37 and 38 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and
Sections 3D and 3E of the National Highways Act, 1956,
statutorily recognise this right of the acquirer.
iii) This step of taking over of possession has been a
matter of great judicial scrutiny and this Court has
endeavoured to construe the relevant provisions in a way
which ensures non-arbitrariness in this action of the acquirer.
For that matter, after taking over possession, the process of
land acquisition concludes with the vesting of the land with the
concerned authority. The culmination of an acquisition process
by vesting has been a matter of great importance. On this
aspect, the courts have given a large number of decisions as
to the time, method and manner by which vesting takes place.
34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said judgement has
categorically held that the absence of one of the seven rights or some of them
which are foundational components of a law that is in tune with Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India would render the acquisition liable to be set aside.
35. Applying the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the
present facts of the case, this court found that are four sub-rights out of seven
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
42 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
sub-rights of Constitutional Right to Property outlined by the Supreme Court
are absent. They are:-
(i) no notice under Section 15(2) was issued to the petitioner in respect
of acquisition of 77 square meters of land which was included for the first time
only in the paper publications effected on 14.11.2018 by way of eratta
notification amending the earlier 15(2) notice dated 27.11.2014 issued for the
acquisition of 364 square meters of land from the petitioner and enhancing the
proposed acquisition of land from 364 to 441 square meters. Thus, the
petitioner was deprived of right to notice in respect of acquisition of 77 square
meters;
(ii) As already stated supra, though the petitioner herself attended the
award enquiry held on 09.09.2020 and submitted all relevant documents
relating to her ownership, however the LAO had considered the same. She in
fact consented for acquisition subject to issuance of necessary notification for
acquisition of land as per law. On the other hand, the LAO recorded in the
award proceedings that on behalf of the petitioner her son Dakshina Moorthy
only appeared for the award enquiry and presented an objection petition
expressing his objection with regard to extent of land proposed to be acquired
and mentioned in 15(2) Notification and 15(1) Notification, however, he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
43 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
not given any statement and produced sufficient documents. This would go to
show that the LAO had issued a notice under Section 19(5) just for the sake of
formality and not at all considered the documents produced by the petitioner at
the time of award enquiry;
(iii) In this case, a portion of the land alone was acquired and as such
question of restitution and rehabilitation would not arise, however, the State is
duty bound to pay fair compensation to land owners who were deprived of their
rights to possess the land. The LAO has not followed the mandatory
procedures in the RECTLARR Act, 2013 for determination of compensation
and other statutory benefits and interests.
(iv) The acquisition proceedings also as already discussed supra was
not conducted efficiently and expeditiously. As already discussed supra, there
had occurred considerable delay in issuing notification under Section 15(1).
Further, the award was also not passed within the time prescribed in the
RECTLARR Act, 2013, and the award was passed beyond the period of one
year stipulated under Section 25 of the RECTLARR Act, 2013.
36. That apart, the impugned award also suffers from procedural
irregularities as no individual award detailing the particulars of compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
44 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
payable and the details of payment of the compensation as specified in the First
Schedule was passed and served on the petitioner immediately.
37. Although the entire acquisition proceedings is vitiated, taking into
consideration the fact that the purpose for which the lands were acquired and
the acquired lands had already been utilized for the purpose of four lanning the
highway, there would not be any purpose served if the entire acquisition
proceedings is set aside and the 1st respondent is permitted to start the
acquisition proceedings afresh from the inception. The writ petition also does
not challenge the notification under Section 15(2) followed by notification
under Section 15(1) though expressed her grievance that she was not served
any notice in respect of additional land of 77 square meters sought to be
acquired subsequently. As such, this court is of the view that as the Award
dated 15.02.2020 has been passed without following any of the mandatory
provisions, setting aside the award dated 15.12.2020 with a direction to the
respondents to adequately compensate the petitioner after determining the
market value by following the parameters in the Central Act, 2013 would alone
meet the ends of justice.
38. In the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
discussions made herein above, the Award passed in Award No.136/2020-21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
45 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
dated 15.12.2020 insofar as it relates to the acquisition of the petitioner’s land
alone is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to pass award
afresh taking into account the fact that the award date shall be the date for
reckoning the market value. While determining the market value as directed
above, the 1st respondent/LAO will take into account the potential value of the
subject land acquired from the petitioner. The 1st respondent will also award
solatium, additional market value and statutory interest, if any, as per the
RECTLAR Act, 2013. The 1st respondent/LAO will take 04.12.2014 as date of
publication of 15(2) notification in respect of acquisition of 364 square meters
of land ie., 04.12.2014 and take 14.11.2018 as the date of publication of 15(2)
notification in respect of 77 square meters of land to compute 12% interest till
date of award which is to be passed. The 1 st respondent / LAO shall also
award statutory interest as provided under Section 80 of the RECTLARR Act,
2013 on the compensation amount after deducting the amount already paid
from the date of possession and until the amount of compensation to be
determined is paid to the petitioner in full. The 1st respondent/LAO shall pass
award detailing the particulars of compensation payable and details of payment
of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule to the RECTLARR Act,
2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
46 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
39. In the light of the above discussions and the facts and circumstances
of the case, even though there were certain irregularities in the acquisition
proceedings right from Section 15(2) notification, the same would not warrant
proceeding against the 5th respondent departmentally as well criminally. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also did not give much importance
on the same during his arguments. Therefore, insofar as the relief sought
against the 5th respondent is concerned, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The Award dated 15.12.2020
impugned in the writ petition insofar as it relates to the petitioner’s lands alone
is set aside and the 1st respondent/LAO shall pass fresh award taking into
account the dates for determining the market value, calculating additional
market value and statutory interest as directed above. The writ petition as
against the 5th respondent stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
WMP is closed.
Index : yes / no 30..07..2024
Neutral Citation : yes / no
Speaking / Non-Speaking Order
kmk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
47 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
To
1.The Special District Revenue Officer /
Land Acquisition Officer,
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, 68/136,
K.Gangai Street,
Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem 636 005.
2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Tiruppur.
3.The Additional Chief Secretary /
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
4.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary, Highways Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
5.The Project Director,
TN Road Sector Project-II,
Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
48 of 49
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
N. SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk
Pre Delivery Order
In
W.P.No.4921 of 2024
30..07..2024
1/2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
49 of 49