AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan
Heard Mr. P. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Spl. G.P. for the respondents. The petitioner
has prayed for a direction to the first respondent to enhance the compensation as per the revised estimate and disburse the same within a
reasonable time.
According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property in Survey No. 5/10A2 situated at Pukkulam Road, Thiyagadurgam, Kallakurichi
Taluk, Villupuram District, totally measuring an extent of 100 square meters comprised in Patta No. 529 and the land is residential in nature with
RCC roof building. The petitioner is a Mason and earning on daily wage basis. He purchased the property of an extent of 1352 Sq.Ft. on
8.1.1999 and he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of purchase and he is regularly paying all taxes and other
incidental charges time to time. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the National Highways Authority issued a Notification in newspaper
and the same was also published in the Central Government Gazette, wherein, they notified that the land with the building, is proposed to be
acquired for widening of NH68 into four lane road.
The petitioner further states that the second respondent as Land Acquisition Officer, issued notice u/s 3-C of the National Highways Act and
invited objections. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent and submitted his objection regarding the proposed acquisition of his
land in S. No. 5/10A2. However, the respondents over-ruled the objections and declared that the property is needed for public purpose and
acquired it under compulsory in nature. The petitioner thereafter submitted a request to the second respondent to determine the value by
considering the building and other valuables situated in the land and further requested to fix the value as per the market value after computing the
solatium as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Inspite of the request made by the petitioner, the second respondent fixed the
compensation without applying the yardstick formulated in the Land Acquisition Act and passed an award.
Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, who considered the request of
the petitioner and ordered for re-estimate and directed the second respondent to consider the valuation report and enhance the compensation.
However, the second respondent, instead of enhancing the value, took the possession with Police force and informed that a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs has
been ordered as per the revised estimate, but they failed to disburse the same. After the repeated requests, they directed the petitioner to make a
request to the first respondent for enhancing the value. Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 26.11.2011 to the first respondent, who
acknowledged the same and issued receipt. The first respondent also equally failed to consider the claim of the petitioner and so far, neither the
revised estimate amount has been paid, nor the request/claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner also made a representation on
30.7.2012 by RPAD to the first respondent and prayed to enhance the value as per the revised estimate and disburse the same as early as
possible, and the same is pending. Since there is no response, the petitioner is before this Court for the above relief.
The first respondent has filed counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that an extent of 100 Sq. Mtrs of land and structures situated in S. No. 5/10A2
of Pukkulam Village in Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District, owned by the petitioner, was proposed for formation of four laning road under
National Highways No. 68 and the Notification u/s 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, was published in the Government of India
Gazette No. 946 in S.O. No. 1640(E), dated 9.7.2008 and the substance of such notification has been published u/s 3-A(3) of the said Act in two
local dailies, viz., Dhina Thanthi (Tamil) and The New Indian Express (English), dated 16.8.2008. As there were no specific objections received,
the Notification u/s 3-D(1) of the said Act was published in Government of India Gazette No. 787 in S. No. 1270(E), dated 19.5.2009. The
public notices u/s 3-G(3) of the said Act was also published in two local dailies, viz., Dhina Thanthi and The New Indian Express, dated 7.7.2009
and award has been passed, vide first respondent''s Roc. No. 277/09, dated 18.1.2010.
The first respondent further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner appeared for enquiry on 20.7.2009, conducted by the then
competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), NH-68, Salem and offered his concurrence for acquisition of land along with RCC
building and bore well therein in the land. During enquiry, no objections were raised by the petitioner. The land value has been fixed by the then
competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways-68, Salem at Rs. 527/- per Sq.Mtr. The value for the
structure, viz., RCC building and tin sheet roof had been fixed at Rs. 7,36,985/- by the Executive Engineer (PWD), Kallakurichi and the same has
been adopted in the award. The then competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), NH68, Salem, followed the procedures laid
down under the National Highways Act, for fixing the land valuation.
It is the further case of the first respondent in the counter affidavit that 10% of additional amount has been awarded for the land and structures
owned by the petitioner and it was paid as per the said Act. The solatium requested by the petitioner as per the Land Acquisition Act, does not
apply as per Section 3-J of the National Highways Act. Regarding the payment for structures, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kallakurichi,
prepared the estimate for the structures after following due procedures and estimated the same to the tune of Rs. 7,36,985/-. The petitioner
appeared before the then competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), NH-68, Salem and offered his willingness to vacate the
land under acquisition, RCC building etc., within 15 days. Subsequently, the petitioner has received the compensation amount of Rs. 7,36,985/-
for the structures and after receiving the compensation amount, he applied for re-estimate in respect of his building and the petition was forwarded
to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kallakurichi, for re-examination of the valuation already fixed. After re-verification of the structures, the
Executive Engineer, PWD, Kallakurichi, re-fixed the value of the structures at Rs. 9,90,143/- on 24.9.2010 and forwarded the revised estimate to
the second respondent for further action.
The first respondent further alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has presented a petition to the first respondent on 30.7.2012, which
was forwarded to the second respondent, who has submitted a counter affidavit along with connected records to the first respondent, i.e. the
Arbitrator-cum-District Collector, Villupuram, on 6.9.2012. On arbitration petition, the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Villupuram will fix the date for
conducting enquiry on both the petitioner and the second respondent and after perusal of documents and records, the first respondent will issue
final orders on the arbitration petition after following due procedures laid down in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
On the above background of pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
It is not in dispute that the land and structures of an extent of 100 Sq.Mtrs. situated in S. No. 5/10A2 of Pukkulam Village, Kallakurichi Taluk,
Villupuram District, owned by the petitioner, had been acquired for formation of four laning road under NH-68 and award has been passed. The
Executive Engineer, PWD, Kallakurichi, determined the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 7,36,985/-towards the structures, RCC building,
tin sheet roof, etc. and the land value was fixed at Rs. 527/- per Sq.Mtr. and the same were paid to the petitioner after deducting the salvage and
income tax amount. The petitioner received the compensation amount. After receiving the compensation amount, the petitioner has presented a
petition on 30.7.2012 to the first respondent for enhancement of the compensation amount and the same is pending consideration.
In the light of the above stated position, as the first respondent is seized of the matter, he has to pass necessary orders based on the records
produced by the second respondent. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders
on the petitioner''s claim for enhancement of compensation amount, in his representation, dated 30.7.2012, on merits and in accordance with law,
after giving him an opportunity of hearing, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.