M. Loganathan vs The Government of Tamilnadu and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification issued by the State

Government u/s. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner. The State of Tamilnadu issued a

notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.03.2007. The notice was published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette as also in the local

newspaper and substance of notice was also advertised in the locality.

Thereafter notification u/s.6 was also issued on 14.05.2008, after considering the objection u/s. 5(A). The notification u/s. 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act was also issued after following the process of law. Thereafter after hearing the land owners award was passed on 21.05.2010.

Pleaded case of the petitioner is that before passing of award, the land owners had filed similar writ petitions W.P.Nos.761 to 765/2009 to The

challenge to notification issued u/s. 4 and 6. It is not disputed that these writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon''ble Single Judge and decision of

the Hon''ble Single Judge was confirmed in writ appeal, and the SLP filed against the decision was also dismissed.

The stand of the petitioner is that review has been filed against the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and that the review petition is yet to

be numbered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that notification u/s. 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition

is without jurisdiction, in as much as it has been issued by authority not competent to issue such notification.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 4 (1) has been amended by the State of Tamilnadu, and the jurisdiction of

the Collector to issue notification u/s. 4 is only with respect to the land not exceeding 40 acres and the value to which does exceed Rs.25 lakhs

(Rupees Twenty five lakhs only), whereas the commissioner can issue notification upto 75 acres where the value does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs

(Rupees fifty lakhs only) and State Government is required to issue notification in all other cases.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the compensation granted by the Collector, it is revealed that the value of the

land was more than Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore the notification could have been issued by the State Government, and not by the Collector or the

Commissioner. Therefore, the whole proceedings stands vitiated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends, that the notification issued u/s. 4 is also not as per the Act as amended, the notification was

wrongly shown to have been issued on behalf of appropriate Government, though signed by the Collector, further more the exercise of power by

the Tahsildar, as a delegate of Collector also cannot be sustained as the delegate cannot further delegate.

On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition, firstly for the reason that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition after

the passing of the award on 21.05.2010, as on passing of award the land vests free from all encumbrances with the state and petitioner ceases to

have any interest in the land (Except right to claim market value).

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification u/s. 4 is vitiated because it was issued by the Collector, also cannot

be sustained, as it is not disputed, as at the time of assessing of the value of the land, the value was assured at Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees Twenty five

lakhs only). The order of the Collector who had issued notification subsequently on appreciation of evidence by land owners and the State

Government in granting compensation at market value exceeding the assessed value cannot be a ground to challenge notification. If this contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is accepted there will be no binding to the notification, as the compensation is enhanced from time to time

right upto Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Therefore, in the event of compensation being enhanced after the date of notification, it cannot be a ground to challenge the notification. The

amendment in Section 4 only stipulates the issuance of notification in view of the value as assessed at the time of acquisition, and not finally

determined.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also deserves to be rejected for the reason that in objection filed u/s.5(A) no such plea

was raised by the petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Collector has delegated his powers to the Tahsildar, also cannot be sustained as

only ministrial work has been done by the Tahsildar, whereas the objections were decided by the Collector u/s. 5(A). It cannot be said to be

vitiated the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner had placed reliance on the previous writ petitions, which was said to be pending in this court at

the time of admission of this writ petition, after the dismissal of those writ petitions, the decision attained finality up to Supreme Court, it is not now

open the petitioner to say that the grounds in this petition are different from this writ. No merits. Dismissed.