WA/2584/2002 of N.D. RAMANUJAM Vs THE STATE OF TN., on 23 December 2005

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,rep.by its Secretary to Government,Revenue Department,Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The SecretaryHousing and Urban Development Department,Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.3.The Collector of Madras,Chepauk,Chennai – 600 005.4.The Special Tahsildar (L.A-III),Tamil nadu Housing Board Scheme,Nandanam,Chennai – 600 0355.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,K.K.Nagar Division,T.N.H.B., Ashok Nagar,Madras – 83....Respondents in all appeals/Respondents in all WPs Writ appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,against the common order of the learned single Judge dated31.7.2002 made in W.P.Nos.15453/1995, 15455/1995 and 15454/1995respectively.

W.P.Nos.15453 to 15455/95

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for all the records ofthe respondents herein connected with the Award enquiry proceedingschallenged herein and quashing the entire proceedings in AwardNo.1/94 dt. 19.8.1994 of the fourth respondent in respect of theproperty in Question situated in T.S.Nos.3/1, (Part) 3/3. and 3/5Block No.31, Mambalam Village, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk, MadrasDistrict, Madras respectively.

For Petitioners in all W.As. ... Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.MaikandanFor Respondents 1 to 3 in all W.As... Mr.S.KandasamySpl. Govt. Pleader.For Respondents 4 and 5 in all W.As... Mr.D. Veerasekaran.COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.)

These writ appeals are filed against the common order passedby the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.15453 to 15455 of 1995 dated31.7.2002. The appellants/writ petitioners, in their respectivewrit petition, challenged the Award dated 19.8.1994, passed underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned single Judge negativedthe contentions of the writ petitioners and consequently dismissedthe writ petitions, against which the present writ appeals arepreferred.

2. (a)Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the appellants/writ petitioners made two legal submissions.Firstly the learned Senior counsel contended that the LandAcquisition Officer, who passed the Award, failed to follow theprocedures contemplated under Section 9(2) of the Land AcquisitionAct in respect of giving 15 days time to appear for the awardenquiry. The second contention is that prior approval was notobtained by the Officer from the appropriate Government or of suchofficer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf,since the compensation amount in each of the Award is more thanRs.10/- lakhs. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Section 4(1) notification was issued on 30.7.1987; Section 6declaration was published in the gazette on 14.9.1988; localpublication was made on 16.9.1988; and a notice under Section 9 and10 was issued on 9.3.1990. It is further submitted that theacquisition proceedings were challenged on 24.4.1990 by filingW.P.No.5375 and 5376 of 1990 and an interim stay from this Courtwas obtained on 30.4.1990. This Court dismissed the said writpetitions on 5.4.1994.

Conclusion

(b) The learned Senior Counsel argued that on 11.8.1994,notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, foraward enquiry was issued with a direction to appear for awardenquiry on 18.8.1994 and on 18.8.1994, a counsel appeared on behalfof the writ petitioners and prayed for time, but however, award waspassed on 19.8.1994. According to the learned Senior Counsel, assuch the notice issued to appear for award enquiry, giving lessthan 15 days time, is vitiated, as it is in contravention ofsection 9(2) of the Land acquisition Act. The appellants were notgiven sufficient time to effectively represent in the awardenquiry, which caused prejudice to the appellants.

(c) In support of his second contention, the learned SeniorCounsel drew our attention to ground (c) raised in the affidavitfiled in support of the writ petitions, which reads as follows,"The approval of the appropriate Government hasnot been accorded which is apparent from a perusalon the Award by its conspicuous absence. The priorapproval of the appropriate Government is to beobtained within the statutory period prescribedunder first proviso to section 11(1) of the LandAcquisition Act and the Award is lapsed if noapproval is obtained."

This is one of the common ground raised in all the writ petitions,against which the present writ appeals are preferred.

3. Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader eventhough pointed out the defence raised in paragraph 13 of thecounter affidavit that the award was passed by the Land AcquisitionOfficer only after getting approval of the Government in eachstage, no specific date is mentioned in the counter affidavit withregard to the date on which the approval from the competentauthority was obtained prior to passing of the award on 19.8.1994.

4. Among the two points raised for consideration in thesewrit appeals, first we take up the second point.

5. Proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Actclearly states that no award shall be made by the Collector underthis sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriateGovernment or of such officer as the appropriate Government may

authorise in this behalf. It is further stated that it shall becompetent for the appropriate Government to direct that theCollector may make such award without such approval in such classof cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.The appropriate authority to approve the award is notified inG.O.Ms.No.2003, Revenue, dated 30.12.1984, in which it is statedthat the Commissioner of Land Administration has to approve everyaward, in which the total compensation exceeds Rs.10/- lakhs.

6. The learned Single Judge, as regards the prior approvalof the Commissioner of Land Administration, held in the order thatthe learned Special Government Pleader produced the original fileNo.Pa.Mu/21657/89, dated 29.5.1990 from the Office of theCommissioner, Land Administration and observed that after goingthrough the file it is seen that the Note Order was signed by theSpecial Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and inthe copy communicated to the District Collector, the same wassigned by the lower officer. After observing so, the learnedSingle Judge came to the conclusion that the Award in question gotthe prior approval of the Commissioner of Land administration asper Section 11(1) of the Act.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants reiteratedthe above point and requested this Court to peruse the file to findout as to when actually the prior approval was given as the priorapproval could have been given on 18.8.1994 or on 19.8.1994 only.

8. On the basis of the above submission, this Court directedthe learned Special Government Pleader to produce the file, forwhich the learned Special Government Pleader submits that he hasreceived a communication from the Government that the said file wasdestroyed on 2.6.2003 itself, after the passage of ten years, as aroutine office procedure. The said submission of the learnedSpecial Government Pleader is hereby recorded. It is needless topoint out at this juncture that the writ petitions challenging theaward was filed in September, 1995 and the writ petitions weredisposed of by the learned Single Judge on 31.7.2002. The writappeals were filed on 20.8.2002 and admitted on 22.8.2002. Evenaccording to the learned Special Government Pleader, the file wasdestroyed on 2.6.2003, that is, long after the admission of thewrit appeals. Hence the non-production of the file for perusal ofthis Court to verify the actual date of prior approval of theCommissioner of Land Administration is to be taken as an adverseinference, as the date of prior approval of the Commissioner ofLand Administration is not stated or disclosed anywhere forsatisfying the compliance of Section 11(1) of the Act.

9. In view of the above said fact and as no record to showthat the prior approval had in fact been obtained before passingthe award dated 19.8.1994, clearly established the failure on the part of the respondents in not following the mandatory requirementsunder section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

10. (a)The learned Senior Counsel relied on 1999 (III) CTC715 (T.Paramaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu), wherein a learned SingleJudge of this Court in para 5 held that as per the first proviso tosection 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, before passing of an award,prior approval of the appropriate Government or such authority asprescribed, is a mandatory one. In that case, the approval wasgiven by an incompetent authority, namely, the District RevenueOfficer. The said approval was not considered as a valid approvaland consequently this Court quashed the award.

(b) In yet another decision relied on by the learned SeniorCounsel reported in 2001(3) Law Weekly 518 (Venkatesan P. & Othersv. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others), another learned SingleJudge of this Court held that prior approval of the award, if theamount exceeds Rs.10 lakhs, is mandatory. In that case as theprior approval having not been obtained as required under section11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the award was declared as nulland void and the same was set aside.

11. As stated supra, since the respondents have not provedthe prior approval of the award dated 19.8.1994 by the Commissionerof Land Administration, which is a mandatory one as per Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the impugned award No.1 of 1994 isliable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. In view ofour above findings and consequential setting aside of the awarddated 19.8.1994, this Court is of the opinion that the first pointraised by the learned Senior Counsel need not be taken up forconsideration.

12. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed by settingaside the common order of the learned single Judge dated 31.7.2002and the writ petitions are allowed.

vr

To1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu,Revenue Department,Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.2.The SecretaryHousing and Urban Development Department,Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.3.The Collector of Madras,Chepauk,Chennai – 600 005.4.The Special Tahsildar (L.A-III),Tamil nadu Housing Board Scheme,Nandanam,Chennai – 600 0355.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,K.K.Nagar Division,T.N.H.B., Ashok Nagar,Madras – 83.6. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras1 cc to Govt. Pleader, SR. 509171 cc to Mr.T.Maikandan, Advocate, SR. 507681 cc to Mr.D. Veerasekaran, Advocate, SR. 103/06W.A.Nos.2584 to 2586 of 2002 JE (CO)kk 2/1