T. Paramaraj vs State of Tamil Nadu and another

The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus for bearing the respondents from proceeding further under Land

Acquisition Act in respect of the lands covered u/s 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.154 Industries (MIH-II) dated 26.4.1993 of the

Government of Tamil Nadu under which the land of the petitioner comprised in Survey No.222/8 in Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul

Anna District has been declared to have been acquired on various grounds.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

After taking me through various averments made in the affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-

(i) In as much as there was no prior approval by the Government/competent authority, the award said to have been passed on 16.6.1995 is non

cost and cannot be sustained.

(ii) Since the declaration u/s 6 was published on 16.6.1993, the award said to have been passed on 16.6.1995 is out of time, accordingly the same

is also liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate after taking me through the various averments in the counter affidavit filed by the first

respondent would contend that since the award has been approved by the District Revenue Officer as per the instructions of the Commissioner of

Land Administration, the award passed on 16.6.1995 cannot be in to ordered. He would also contend that the award passed on 16.6.1995 is

within the time prescribed, hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

With regard to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no dispute that as per first proviso to Section 11 of

the Act before passing of an award, prior approval of the appropriate Government or such authority as prescribed is a mandatory one. Even

though, it is stated that prior approval was not at all obtained from any one in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in para-5 it is stated

that ""The Land Acquisition Officer, has prepared the draft Award and it has been got approved by the District Revenue Officer as per the

instructions of the Commissioner of Land Administration. After getting the approval of the draft Award from the District Revenue Officer, the Land

Acquisition Officer passed the award in his Award No.5/95, dated 16.6.1995."" It has hot been explained as to how the District Revenue Officer is

authorised or empowered to approve the award. On the other hand, it is brought to my notice that by G.O.Ms.No.2003, Revenue, dated

30.12.1984, the Governor of Tamil Nadu authorised the Commissioner of Land Administration and District Collector to approve awards. First

Proviso to sub section (1) of section 11, issued the following notification:-

(i) The Commissioner of Land Administration to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed exceeds 10 lakhs rupees;

(ii) The District Collector to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed does not exceeds 10 lakhs rupees.

It is also stated that the amount has been further amended the enhanced as Rs.20 lakhs instead of Rs.10 lakhs as mentioned above.

It is clear that the Government have authorised only the Commissioner of Land Administration and District Collector to approve every award

depending on the amount fixed. In the absence of any such specific authorisation, it is not clear as to how the District Revenue Officer has

approved the award in question. In the absence of any specific information and in view of the notification refereed to above. I sustain the first

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Regarding the second contention, there is no dispute that the declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee

on 12.5.1993, in the dailies on 23.5.1993 and in the locality on 16.6.1993. In other words, the date of declaration was 16.6.1993. As per Section

11A of the Act, the collector has to make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration under section, 6 of the

Act. I have already stated that the date of declaration was on 16.6.1993. If that is so, the award in our case ought to have been passed on or

before 15.6.1995. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a decision rendered by the Apex Court reported

in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Rajiv Gupta and Another, , similar question was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in that decision.

Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published in that case on 22.12.1990. Their Lordships have held that by operation of Section 11A, the award

should be made within two years from the date of publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act i.e. on or before 21.12.1992. If that is so, in our case

as observed earlier, the award ought to have been passed on or before 15.6.1995. Admittedly, in our case the award has been passed only on

16.6.1995, which is beyond the prescribed limit as stated above. Accordingly, I sustain the second contention also. Therefore, the petitioner is

entitled to succeed.

Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the entire acquisition proceedings are quashed. No costs. It is made clear that

allowing of the writ petition will not be a bar for the respondents to proceed afresh, if they so desire. Consequently, W.M.P.No.13112 of 1995 is

closed.