Thirumalayappan (Minor) … vs The Authorised Officer, (Land … on 20 October, 1987

0
37
Madras High Court
Thirumalayappan (Minor) … vs The Authorised Officer, (Land … on 20 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1989) 1 MLJ 33
Author: Ratnam

ORDER

Ratnam, J.

1. The land-holder is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which is directed against the order of the authorities below holding that the amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the surplus lands taken over should be in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 and not with reference to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act (58 of 1961) as unamended (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). There is no dispute that according to the draft assessment roll, the amount payable to the petitioner towards the surplus lands taken over was fixed at Rs. 1,802 and this was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22.8.1979. A copy of the draft assessment roll was also served on the land holder on 12.9.1979. The petitioner raised an objection that the final statement under Section 12 of the Act was published on 12.2.19/76 long prior to 27.10.1978 when Tamil Nadu Act II of 1979 came into force and therefore, the amount payable in respect of the surplus lands has to be determined without reference to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act II of 1979. This objection was overruled by the Authorised Officer on the ground that the amount in respect of the surplus lands taken over becomes payable only after the publication of the notification under Section 18(1) of the Act and as in the case of the petitioner, such a notification was published only on 3.1.1979, after the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act of 11 1979 came into force, the amount payable should be worked out only in accordance with these provisions and not without reference to them. On appeal by the petitioner, the Land Tribunal also concurred with the conclusion of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal. It is the correctness of this, that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the notification under Section 12 of the Act was published on 12.2.1976, the notification under Section 18(1) of the Act came to be published almost three years thereafter on 3.1.1979 with the knowledge of a proposal to bring about certain amendments under Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 and as such, the delay on the part of the Government in publishing the notification cannot prejudice the petitioner in the matter of payment of amounts for surplus lands taken over. In support of this, learned Counsel relief upon the decisions in Krishna Iyer v. State of Madras ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad and Ambalal v. Ahmedabad Municipality . Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no basis whatever for the claim of the petitioner that the delay in the publication Of the notification under Section 18 of the Act was deliberate with a view to apply only the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 to the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to payment of amounts for surplus land taken over only in accordance with the rates, as are operative on the date of the publication of Section 18(1) notification, as per Section 50(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that the basis for awarding amounts for surplus lands taken over having been prescribed in the Act itself, there was no scope for the application of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to delay arising under the Land Acquisition Act, where the criterion for determining and awarding compensation is the market value as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

3. Certain undisputed facts may now be noticed. The notification under Section 12 of the Act was published on 11.2.1976. The provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 came into force from 27-10-1978. The notification under Section 18(l) was published on 3.1.1979 after the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 came into force. Under Section 50(1) of the Act, very person, whose right title or interest in any and is acquired by the Government under Chap. II, shall be paid an amount according to the ate specified in Schedule III, as in force, on the date of acquisition of such right, title or interest in any such land. Section 50(2) of the Act provides for the preferring of claims for amounts, by persons, within thirty days from the date of notification under Section 18(1) of the Act, whose right, title or interest is acquired by Government under Chap. II. The acquisition under Chap. II of the right, title or interest of a person is under Section 18(3) of the Act, with effect from the date of publication of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 18. The amount payable in respect of such acquisition of the right, title and interest of a person under Section 18(3) of the Act, is also not stated to be compensation, but is merely described as an amount in Section 50(1) of the Act. The amount payable as set out in Schedule III of the Act was introduced with effect from 27-10-1978 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979. Thus, the relevant date for the payment of the amount in accordance with Schedule III of the Act is the date of acquisition of such right, title or interest, which again under Section 18(3) of the Act is the date of publication of the notification under Section 18(1) of the Act. In this case, there is no dispute as seen earlier, that the notification under Section 18(1) of the Act was published on 3.1.1979 and as per Section 50(1) of the Act, the amount payable to the person, whose right, title or interest is acquired, should be in accordance with the rates specified in Schedule III, as in force, on the date of acquisition of such right under Section 18(3), viz., 3.1.1979. The claim of the petitioner that the matter of payment of the amount to the petitioner in respect of the surplus lands taken over had been deliberately delayed with a view to apply to him the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1979 is without substance. No material has been placed before the Court to show that there was deliberate or even avoidable delay in the publication of the notification under Section 18 of the Act on 3.1.1979, after an earlier publication under Section 12 of the Act on 12.2.1976 with a view to prevent the petitioner from claiming higher amounts. The principles laid down in the decisions under the Land Acquisition Act, referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, have no application at all, having regard to the scheme for payment of amounts to a person from whom surplus lands have been acquired by reason of the provisions of the Act by the notification under Sections 8(1) and 18(3) provided in the Act. The provision for payment of the amount namely, Section 50(1) of the Act does not make any reference to either compensation or even market value. Cases arising under the Land Acquisition Act stand on a different footing, for, what is paid to a person, whose lands are acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, is Compensation determined in accordance with the market value of the lands acquired at the time of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The amount paid with reference to cases falling under the Land Acquisition Act is by way of compensation based on the prevailing market value of acquired lands. In other words, such amounts are not statutorily fixed as in cases arising under the Act, but have got to be ascertained and determined by an award. It is in this context, it has been pointed out that the benefit of the upward trend in market value during the interval between the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the subsequent stages culminating in an award, cannot be denied to the owner of the land, when the prolongation of the proceedings had operated in a manner prejudicial or detrimental to the owner of the land, especially when the land value had increased during the interval. Earlier it has been noticed how for the purpose of awarding the amount in respect of the excess lands acquired from a land owner, there is no question of determination of the market value or the passing of an award, but that the amount is payable in accordance with the provisions made in the Act, namely, Schedule III, and no more. It has already been seen that in this case there was no deliberate or avoidable delay in the publication of the notification under Section 12 and Section 18 of the Act on 12.2.1976 and 3.1.1979, respectively. In such a case, under Section 50 of the Act, the amount payable to the petitioner should only be in accordance with Schedule III under the Act and not any other. There is no scope, having regard to the provisions of the Act and the scheme provided there under in respect of payment of an amount for the surplus lands acquired, to invoke the analogy of acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and to claim that the time interval cannot operate prejudicially to the owner of the land and therefore, the amount in respect of the lands taken over should not be fixed with reference to the schedule, which was operative on the date, when the lands were acquired, but with reference to the provisions, which would be inapplicable on that date. No other point was urged. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here