BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06/10/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.8431 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.8434 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2009 K.Rajkumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8431 of 2009 N.Karuppuchamy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8434 of 2009 Vs 1.The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. 2.The Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, 11/A, Indira Nagar, Sennamanaickenpatti, Dindigul. 3.The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, No.10, Kamadenu Nagar, Venkamedu, Karur. 4.The Tahsildar (L.A) National Highways Unit I, Dindigul. 5.The District Munsif, District Munsif Court, Vedasandur, Dindigul District....Respondents
Common Prayer
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.302/2007/A2, dated 09.06.2009 insofar as the land and dwelling house
belonging to the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd
respondent to withdraw and pay the compensation amount of Rs.15,487/- and
Rs.5,82,459/- respectively pertaining to the petitioner deposited in the 5th
respondent’s Court.
!For Petitioners ... Mr.R.R.Kannan (in both W.Ps)
^For Respondents 1,2 and 4… Mr.Pala.Ramasamy,
(In both W.Ps) Special Government Pleader.
For 3rd Respondent ... Mr.R.Rajagopal :COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are identical and the
facts and circumstances are also identical, by consent they are taken up
together and disposed of by a common order.
2.The petitioners lands were subject matter of acquisition proceedings
under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and a notification under
Section 3-A(1) was published in the daily on 14.08.2006 and specified extent of
land were acquired for the purpose of widening the NH-7 between Bangalore-Salem-
Madurai scheme. Thereafter, notification under Section 3-G(3) of the Act was
published in the daily on 02.06.2008 and during October 2008, the revenue
officials have inspected the property and informed the petitioners that
compensation would be paid for the land and building. It is further submitted
that the petitioners did not object to the measurement of the site since the
land is required for a public purpose. Thereafter, dwelling house of the
petitioners was demolished without even payment of compensation and they have
also formed their road on their patta land. Thereafter, the petitioners have
approached the second respondent on several occasions requesting for payment of
compensation. However, no specific reply was given and the petitioners were
shocked to receive the order dated 09.06.2009, which is impugned in the writ
petitions stating that the compensation amount for the land and building has
been deposited to the credit of O.S.No.286 of 2008, on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Vedasandur by invoking their power under Section 3-GH(4) of the
Act. It is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present
writ petitions.
3.The correctness of the impugned order is assailed on the ground that the
action of the second respondent is unfair and unreasonable and the second
respondent failed to note that the petitioner is not a party in the civil
litigation pending before the District Munsif Court, Vedasandur and the second
respondent ought not to have deposited the award amount pertaining to the
petitioners to the credit of the suit. It is further stated that the petitioners
have not been served with a copy of the award which has prevented them from
knowing in what manner the award came to be passed.
4.Mr.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the third respondent would contend
that it is always open to the petitioners to file an application before the
Civil court seeking for withdrawal of the said amount and the petitioners cannot
approach this Court by filing the present writ petitions and state that the writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed.
5.Heard Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the third respondent and Mr.Pala.Ramasamy,
learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and perused
the materials available on record.
6.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K.
Project v. Mahaboob and another reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 137 (SC), while
considering the plight of the persons, who are affected by the land acquisition
proceedings held that unless the process of acquisition gives land owner a
reasonable compensation either at the time of or immediately after the
dispossession, the compensation will be a mirage for most land losers. The
intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation
and purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for land
owner’s livelihood. But in practice, the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make
reasonable offers. They tend to err on the ‘safer’ side and invariably assess
very low compensation. Such meagre awards force the land loser to seek
reference to civil Court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every
award made by the LAO.
7.In the instant case, it is seen that a reference has been made to the
pending civil litigation in O.S.No.286 of 2008 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Vedasandur. The plaintiff in the suit is one Mr.K.Muthusamy,
S/o.Kasiappa Gounder and the defendants are Karuppasamy, S/o.Ramsamy Gounder,
Kalimuthu, S/o.Karuppasamy, Thangaraj, S/o.Karuppasamy. The same parties are
also petitioners and respondents in the I.A filed in the suit. The petitioner
in W.P.No.8431 of 2009, is K.Rajkumar, S/o.N.Karuppuchamy and the petitioner in
W.P.No.8434 of 2009 is N.Karuppuchamy, S/o.Nachiappan. Therefore, it is
abundantly clear that the petitioner in both the writ petitions are not
defendants in the suit.
8.Bearing the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in mind, if the facts
of the present case are analysed which is also one such instance where the
acquiring body has not considered the plight of a person who has affected by
such acquisition. In the instant case, it is submitted that the property in
question was a dwelling house which was demolished. Therefore, it is all the
more necessary for the authorities functioning under the National Highways Act
to exercise their statutory powers in a judicious manner so that the person who
has been divested of his interest in the land should not be made to suffer for
non payment of compensation. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case
where appropriate direction has to be issued to enable the petitioners to
receive the compensation amount payable for the land and building which have
been subject matter of acquisition proceedings.
9.It is to be noted that Karuppuchamy, S/o.Ramasamy Gounder is the first
defendant in the suit and by the very same impugned order, the said first
defendant has been allowed to draw a portion of the compensation amount to the
tune of Rs.4,93,778/-. Therefore, the second respondent has himself permitted a
party to the civil proceedings to withdraw a portion of the compensation amount.
Hence, there cannot be any impediment for a person who is not a party to the
proceedings to receive the entire compensation for the property which was
acquired from him.
10.In view of the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside insofar
as it relates to the petitioners and the second respondent is directed to
initiate appropriate action for the purpose of payment of compensation from the
property acquired from the petitioners by filing appropriate application before
the District Munsif Court, Vedasandur in O.S.No.286 of 2008 and ensure that the
compensation is paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11.Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently,
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2009 are closed.
sms
To
1.The Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways,
New Delhi.
2.The Competent Authority and
District Revenue Officer,
11/A, Indira Nagar,
Sennamanaickenpatti,
Dindigul.
3.The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
No.10, Kamadenu Nagar,
Venkamedu,
Karur.
4.The Tahsildar (L.A)
National Highways Unit I,
Dindigul.
5.The District Munsif,
District Munsif Court,
Vedasandur,
Dindigul District.