Angammal and Munusamy vs The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing and The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board

P. Sathasivam, J.—Since the issue raised in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following

common order. In Writ Petition No. 35947 of 2002, the petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to make

reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the lands acquired in S. No. 61/9 0.38 Cents, 61/8 0.22 Cents in Seekarajapuram, which form

part of Award No. 5 of 88 dated 14-9-1988 to the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet.

In Writ Petition No. 42105 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of similar Mandamus, directing the respondents to make a reference

u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of lands in Seekarajapuram S. No. 61/9 0.221/2 Cents, 66/2 0.10 Cents acquired under Award No.

5/88 dated 1-9-88.

Heard Mr. R. Margabandhu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

4 (i). Learned counsel for the petitioners, after taking me through the Award proceedings, would contend that inasmuch as the petitioners had

participated in the Award proceedings, raised their objections and received the amount determined by the Tahsildar under protest, the first

respondent is bound to make a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Subordinate Court for determination of proper

compensation. He also contended that in the light of the fact that the Tahsildar himself referred to the fact that reference will be sent to the Principal

Subordinate Judge u/s 18 of the said Act to decide compensation as per Rules, the Tahsildar ought to have referred the matter to the competent

Sub Court. He further contended that inasmuch as copy of the award proceedings has not been communicated to the petitioners, their claim cannot

be rejected on the ground of delay.

(ii) On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader, by pointing out Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, would contend that in the

absence of written application to the Tahsildar/Collector concerned and in view of the fact that the copy of the award has been communicated, the

present request of the petitioners cannot be acceded to and both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

In the light of the limited issue raised, it is unnecessary for me to refer the details regarding acquisition of the lands in question. The fact remains

that both the petitioners are the land owners whose lands were sought to be acquired for the public purpose. A perusal of award proceedings (filed

in the typed-set of papers) shows that the petitioner in W.P. No. 35947 of 2002 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 42105 of 2002 are the owners of

the lands in S. No. 61/9 0.38 Cents, 61/8 0.22 Cents; and lands in S. No. 61/9 0.221/2 Cents, 66/2 0.10 Cents in Seekarajapuram respectively.

In the objection raised during the award proceedings, both the petitioners have specifically stated that the amount arrived by the Collector is very

low and prayed for higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 2, 500/- per Cent. In the same objection, it is stated that they are willing to receive the

compensation under protest. For the sake of repetition, I am saying that these factual details are available in the award proceedings itself. It is also

relevant to note that after fixing valuation, the Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer has stated that reference u/s 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") will be sent to the Principal Subordinate Judge to decide the compensation as per

Rules. Learned Special Government Pleader, by drawing my attention to Section 18 of the Act, vehemently contended that in the absence of

written application to the Tahsildar-Collector seeking higher compensation, no direction can be issued at this stage for reference u/s 18 of the Act.

In order to appreciate the said contention, it is useful to refer Section 18 of the Act:-

Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the

matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the

compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made, -

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of

the Collector''s award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u/s 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the

Collector''s award, whichever period shall first expire.

It is true that as per sub-section (1) of Section 18, a person who has not accepted the award has to make a written application to the

Collector/Special Tahsildar stating the grounds for reference. As per Proviso to sub-section (2), application has to be made subject to certain

period as provided in Clauses (a) and (b). I had an occasion to consider similar question in M.P. Palani and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and

others, reported in 1999 Writ L.R. 760. After referring to the award proceedings therein, Section 18 of the Act, and a Division Bench decision of

this Court in Ramalakshmi Ammal, T.A.K.M. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer 1985 Writ L.R. 504, as well as an unreported decision of J.

Kanakaraj, J., in Writ Petition No. 12670 of 1987 dated 28-03-1994 (K.A. Sulaiman v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another), I have

held as follows: (para 5)

In view of Sections 12(2) and 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in the light of the specific assertion in the affidavit objecting to the

fixation of lesser price for their lands and in the absence of any information by any of the respondents, I hold that unless the notice of award is

accompanied by a copy of the award, it would not be effective notice within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Act. Likewise, if any statement is

made during the award enquiry asking for higher compensation, the same may be treated as an application for reference, I also hold that if

compensation is received under protest in such case also it is to be treated as an application for reference. In all these cases, undoubtedly, duty is

cast on the Collector to refer the matter to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication. In this view of the matter,

there will be a direction to the respondents to make a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in so far as the petitioners are concerned

in respect of subject Award No. 4/87 dated 26-4-89 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Writ

Petition is allowed in the above terms. ...

The decision referred to above is directly on the point and applicable to the case of the petitioners. Mr. R. Margabandhu, learned counsel for the

petitioners, has also brought to my notice a decision of K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J., in Writ Petition Nos. 39876 to 39878 of 2002 dated 30-10-

2002 (Subramanian and others v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing, Ranipet and another). In similar circumstance, the learned Judge,

after perusing the award proceedings and noting the statement made by the officer that reference u/s 18 of the Act will also be sent to the Principal

Sub Court to determine the award of compensation, has concluded that ""...It is needless to point out that when the claimants are seeking

enhancement of compensation under the award, the concerned Authority is duty bound to refer the same."" The learned counsel has also brought to

my notice another decision of P.K. Misra, J., in Writ Petition No. 1853 of 1996 dated 5-12-2001 (G. Ganesan v. District Collector, Vellore-9

and 2 others) wherein the learned Judge has taken a similar view and directed the acquisition Collector to make necessary reference to the

concerned Sub Court. All the decisions referred to above support the case of the petitioners. As said earlier, I am aware of the language used in

sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. In the light of the factual position, as evidenced from the award proceedings that both the petitioners have

raised their objection regarding the quantum of compensation and received the amount under protest, the Officer concerned himself has expressed

that necessary reference will be made to the Sub Court u/s 18. I am unable to appreciate the objection of the learned Special Government Pleader.

In the light of what is stated above, I accept the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, the first respondent herein is directed to make a reference

u/s 18 of the Act with reference to the lands of the petitioners acquired which form part of Award No. 5 of 88 dated 14-9-88 and 1-9-88

respectively to the concerned Sub Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petitions are allowed.

No costs.