AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2011 in W.P.(MD) No. 5881 of
2007, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ petition filed by the Appellants, challenging the declaration issued u/s 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as the ""Act"") dated 20.04.2005 and also the award, subsequently passed.
Law is well settled that after the award is passed, it is not open to the parties to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Knowing the same, the
Learned Counsel for the Appellants has in fact restricted his argument only in respect of the validity of the award.
According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, the declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act, a copy of which was obtained by him under Right
to Information Act, 2005, in the form of G.O. Ms. No. 50 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.V) Department dated 20.04.2005
shows that the value of the lands acquired was Rs. 59,24,194/-. However, when the impugned award was passed on 22.03.2007, the value has
been fixed as Rs. 17,68,460/-. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, the reduction of the value was done deliberately
for the purpose of making the award valid, since as per the circular issued by the Government, in cases where the value of the award is more than
Rs. 50 lakhs, the approval of the government is required. The value fixed under 6 declaration as Rs. 59,24,194/- has been deliberately reduced to
Rs. 17,68,460/- which is only to rectify the difficulties of the circular. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel, when once the value is above
Rs. 50 lakhs, which requires approval by the Government, which has not been obtained, the award has to be set aside. If the award is to be set
aside, the acquisition proceedings also should automatically go. We do not subscribe to the view of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants.
In order to find out as to whether the award amount was fixed at the time of 6 declaration, issued by the Government, we have called for the file
from the learned Government Advocate. Accordingly, the learned Government Advocate produced the file along with the notification, issued by
the Government in the form of declaration u/s 6 of the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 50 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated
20.04.2005. There is no mention about the amount. It is also relevant at this stage to refer to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, which
nowhere contemplates that at the time of 6 declaration, the valuation of the property should be mentioned. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:
Declaration that land is required for a public purpose -
(1)Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, (when the appropriate Government) is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made u/s
5-A, Sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the
signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made, from
time to time, in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification u/s 4, Sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report
or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) u/s 5-A, Sub-section (2).
(2)Every declaration shall be published in the official gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of
which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at
convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as
the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the
purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be
inspected.
(3)The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be and, after
making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing.
On a reference to Section 6, especially u/s 6 of Sub-section 2 shows that what are required for the purpose of publishing the declaration are
only relating to the particulars about the lands, purpose for which it was needed and approximate area and there is no requirement of publishing the
value of the land. The value is to be fixed by conducting enquiry. We have also gone through the entire files. The file shows that the value in respect
of the lands acquired have been fixed only at Rs. 17,68,460/-. In fact, for the purpose of conducting an enquiry regarding passing of the award,
which includes the fixing of the value under Sections 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act, notice has been issued.
Since Mr. A. Sivaji, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has also raised a point that even at the time of fixing the value under Sections 9(3) and
10(1) of the Act, no notice has been served, as contemplated u/s 45 of the Act. We again referred to the file in respect of the notice issued under
the above said provisions. It is true that u/s 45(3) of the Act, the attempt must be made to serve notice to a male member of the family and if it is
unable to be served, it can be served by way of affixture. On a reference to 9(3) notice, as we have seen in the file, the same has been served to all
the three Appellants and there has been an endorsement on the back side of the said notices, but, the Appellants have refused to receive and
therefore, the affixture was made in respect of each of the Appellants and that has been counter singed by many of the residents in the area,
including the Village Administrative Officers. Further, it is seen that in addition to the affixture made, steps have been taken for the purpose of
informing by ""tom tom"" and also affixing the notice in a public place with the signature of various residents of the area. In such circumstances, it
cannot be said that even in the enquiry conducted under Sections 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act, no proper notice was served.
Further, the first Appellant in his letter addressed to R.D.O. dated 08.06.2006 has in fact stated that his brother one Prabu, who is the 2nd
Appellant, is working in Ramanathapuram in the TWAD Board and he requires 10 days time for the purpose of receiving the award amount. That
also goes to show that the appellants can never state that they were not aware of the award enquiry. Therefore, even on seeing the entire file, we
are fully satisfied that the amount fixed as award is Rs. 17,68,460/- and the award does not suffer any illegality in the eye of law. In such view of
the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, accordingly the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
dismissed.
Since pending the Writ petition and also the Writ Appeal, there has been an order of stay, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the
Appellants have not preferred any application u/s 18 of the Act by way of reference. It is also seen that in respect of other Appellants, there is no
record to show that the award copy has been communicated to them. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the Appellants must be
permitted to file application for enhancement of compensation, if so advised. It is also made clear that if such representation for enhancement of
compensation is made by the Appellants, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the appropriate authority,
the authority shall refer the same to the competent Court u/s 18 of the Act, within a period of 4 weeks thereafter and then the competent Court
shall decide the claim of the Appellants on merits and in accordance with law, in respect of enhancement of compensation, in stead of rejecting it
on the ground of limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.