Jesunamam vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides and perused the records.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the first and second respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the lands measuring 1.21 acres in Survey No. 314/5, Kumaragiri Village, Tuticorin District, by fixing the market value as on the date filing of the writ petition, namely, 05.04.2005 together with solatium, future interest and damages.

The Writ petition was admitted on 16.04.2005. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the second, third and fourth respondents, counter affidavits have been filed. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner sought for Rupees Five Lakhs as adhoc compensation in W.P.M.P. No. 3326 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 05.01.2007.

It is seen from the notification issued by the Government of India, (first respondent) dated 07.11.2005 u/s 3A(1) of the National Highways Act 1956, the Government wanted to widen the National Highway No. 7A (Palaymkottai to Tuticorin Section). After objections were received from the land owners, they were considered by the competent authority and were over ruled by him. After receipt of the report, the Central Government issued a declaration u/s 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956. In the notification, the survey no (314/5) quoted by the petitioner is shown as dry land and the party in persons interested were shown as P. Thankammal W/o. Pitchimani Nadar and T. Thankammal W/o. Tharmaraj Nadar. It is the said Pitchimani Nadar had appeared in the enquiry u/s 3(G)(3) of the Act and gave a statement. Both the said P.Thankammal and T. Thankammal bought 1.03 acres land from the petitioner, by registered sale deeds dated 08.06.1996. Since the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, the amount was kept in a joint account.

On behalf of the third respondent, in the counter affidavit dated 28.02.2007 filed by the Special Tahsildar, it is stated that the proposal for acquisition of land was received from the 4th respondent and survey No. 314 was noted as poramboke. Out of this survey no, an extent of 1.24 acres was proposed to be acquired by means of transfer of poramboke land. At the time of sending Land Plan Schedule in Survey No. 314/5, an extent of 3.23 acres was shown as quarry poramboke as per the village register of Kumaragiri village. The inspection remarks made by the third respondent dated 21.03.1981 showed that this survey was quarry poramboke and therefore, an extent of 3.23 acres in survey No. 314/5 was changed as assessed dry waste, as per the orders of the D.R.O, Tirunelveli, dated 20.06.1981. A patta was also issued in the name of one Esther Balasundaram. However, all these things took place only after the Land Plan Schedule was received after 07.02.1981. The petitioner''s appeal to the RDO, Tuticorin, regarding transfer of patta is still pending. It was also stated that the compensation will be awarded after the disposal of the proceedings dated 20.01.2007.

The 4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 21.12.2005 stating that as per the revenue records the survey No. 314 was classified as poramboke and therefore, the question of acquiring it under the Land Acquisition Act and payment of compensation will not arise.

Mr. S.S. Sundar, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that a part of the land in Survey No. 314/5 was taken over for the formation of bye-pass road. At that time, when acquisition took place under Act 1 of 1984, this survey no was not included. But at the time of actual laying of the road, an extent of 1.21 acres was utilised without any notice or attempt to acquire the land. The petitioners representations were not responded to all these years. It was stated that after the acquisition by the National Highways Authority, the said land has been utilised for laying the road without any compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for in the writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr, .

(ii) R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. DDA and Others, .

(iii) Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai v. Sri Subramaniaswamy Bajanai Madam Trust and Ors. reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 103. (Madras High Court Division Bench)

In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri''s case (cited supra) case u/s 23(1)A of the Land Acquisition Act, the starting point for the purpose of calculating amount to be awarded thereunder @ 12% per annum on the market value is the date of publication of Section 4 and the terminal point is either the award or taking possession of the land.

In R.L. Jain''s case (cited supra), if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of his possession and his property, he should be paid compensation immediately. If it is not done, he will be entitled to interest from the date of his dispossession till the payment thereof.

The same view was echoed by the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner Madurai Corporation case (cited supra). The said decision also replied upon in explaining the delay in coming to this Court.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent relied on the following judgment. In Atma Singh (died) through LRs. and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and contended that there is no fixed formula for ascertaining the market value of the property.

In any event, in the present case the petitioner cannot contend that there was earlier dispossession without authority and the compensation should be paid to him by the State. The petitioner never staked his claimed before any authority in the last 25 years. There was no explanation for not coming to the Court regarding the so called deprivation of his property. The petitioner is unable to explain the long delay in coming to the Court. With reference to the land acquired by the National Highways Authority, award has been passed and compensation has been deposited with the joint account in favour of the two subsequent purchasers of the land from the petitioner.

In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.