Government Of Puducherry v. L.Rajendran,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.08.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN W.A.No.1704 of 2017 , WA Nos.27 to 36 of 2018 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions

1. Government of Puducherry, Rep by its Special Secretary to Govt., Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry.

2. Sub-Collector (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Office of the Sub Collector, Karaikal.

3. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Office of the Tahsildar, Karaikal.

... Appellants/Respondents in all W.Ps versus L.RAJENDIRAN .. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.NO.26112/2012. WA.27/2018:

K.NATARAJAN ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.43/2013.

WA.28/2018:

GANESAN@KRISHNASAMY..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.21037/2012. WA.29/2018:

E.ARUNASADESAN ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.26113/2012 WA.30/2018:

JAYABALAN ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.26114/2012 WA.31/2018 MALARARASI ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.26115/2012

WA.32/2018:

N.VENNILA ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.34939/2012 WA.33/2018:

V.G.HARIKRISHNAN ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.34940/2012 WA.34/2018:

S.RENGANAYAGHI ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.35426/2012 WA.35/2018:

DUGARAM ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.44/2013 WA.36/2018:

V.SHANMUGAVELU ..Respondent/Petitioner in W.P.No.19322/2013 Appeals filed against the order passed by this Court dated 29.04.2016 passed in W.P.No. 26112 of 2012 (in WA No.1704/2017) Writ Appeal are Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.04.16 and made in the exercise of the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High court in Writ Petition Nos. 26112/12, 43/13, 21037/12, 26113/12, 26114/12,26115/2012, 34939/12, 34940/12, 35426/12, 44/13, 19322/13 presented Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India t issue a Writ of Prayer in W.P.No.26112 of 2012 :

Petition filed Under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records from the respondents relating to the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 29.7.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring his lands situated in S.No.80/2 to an extent of 0.62.0 Ares respectively in Kottucherry Commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

Prayer in W.P.No.43 of 2013 :

to call for records from the first respondent relating to the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 27.06.2011, and the consequent declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 29.07.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Govt., of Puducherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner

and consequently forbear them from acquiring his lands situated in S.No.84/13 and 84/14 to an extent of 0.11.50 and 0.09.50 ares respectively in Kottucherry Commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

Prayer in W.P.No.21037 of 2012 :

To call for records from the respondents relating to the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dt. 29.7.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Govt. of Pudhucherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring his lands as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings. Prayer in W.P.No.26113 of 2012 :

To call for records from the respondents relating to the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 29.7.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring his lands situated in S.No.80/1A to an extent of 0.31.00 Ares respectively in Kottucherry Commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings. Prayer in W.P.No.26114 of 2012 :

To call for records from the respondents relating to the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 29.7.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring his lands situated in S.No.86/1 to an extent of 0.25.00 Ares respectively in Kottucherry Commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings. Prayer in W.P.No.26115 of 2012 :

To call for records from the respondents relating to the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under Section 6 of

the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 29.7.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Govt. of Puducherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring her lands situated in S.Nos. 80/1B & 85/3A to an extent of 0.29.50 and 0.49.25 Ares respectively in Kottucherry Commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

Prayer in W.P.No.34939 of 2012 :

To call for records from the respondents relating to the impugned notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dt. 29.7.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Pudhucherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring her lands situated in S.No.86/4 to an extent of 0.15.50 ares in Kottucherry commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

Prayer in W.P.No.34940 of 2012 :

To call for records from the respondents relating to the impugned notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dt. 29.7.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Pudhucherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring her lands situated in S.No.84/9 to an extent of 0.05.50 ares in Kottucherry commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

Prayer in W.P.No.35426 of 2012 :

To call for records from the 1st respondent relating to the impugned Notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms. No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under section 6 of the said Act in G.O.ms. No.7 dated 29.7.2011 by the department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring their lands situated in Survey No.81/11 to an extent of 0.27.00 Ares, in Kottucherry Commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

Prayer in W.P.No.44 of 2013 :

To call for records from the first respondent relating to the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 29.7.2011 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring his lands situated in S.No.84/16 to an extent of 0.09.50 ares in Kottucherry Commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

Prayer in W.P.No.19322 of 2013 :

To call for records from the respondents relating to the impunged Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 89 (Central Act 1 of 1894) in G.O.Ms. No.4 dated 27.6.2011 and the consequent declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 29.7.11 by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry and quash the same as illegal and unsustainbale in so far which are against the interests and claim of the petitioner and consequently forbear them from acquiring their lands situated in Survey No.87/2, to an extent of 0.94.00 Ares, in Survey No.87/3 to an extent of 0.20.50 Ares and in Survey No.857/4 to an extent of 0.18.00 Ares in Kottucherrry Commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Pondicherry State as notified by them in the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

For Appellants : Mr.V.Usha (in all the Appeals) Additional Govt. Pleader, Pondicherry For Respondents :Mr.S.Kanniah for for the respondents in WA Nos.1704/17, 27 to 29 & 31 to 36 of 2018 No appearance for the respondent in WA No.30/2018 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The challenge in these appeals is to the common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.04.2016 in WP Nos.34939, 34940, 35426, 21037, 26112 to 26115 of 2012 and WP Nos.43, 44 and 19322 of 2013, in and by which, the learned Single Judge quashed the acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellants for the purpose of establishing a National Institute of Technology (NIT) at Karaikal.

2. The challenge in these Writ Petitions was to the proceedings for acquisition of land initiated under the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1984), (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1 of 1984"). The main contention on which the land owners/respondents herein sought for quashing of the acquisition proceedings were as follows:

1. The publication of the 4(1) notification in the Government Gazette was preceded by the publication of the same in the local News Papers.

2. The State was not justified in invoking the urgency provision under Section 17 of the Act 1 of 1984.

3. In view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 30 of 2013"), the Land Acquisition proceedings would lapse.

The facts as set out in the Writ Petitions are as follows:

3. The Government of India sanctioned the proposals for establishment of National Institute of Technology in Karaikal and 9 other places during the 11th Five Year Plan on 30.10.2009. The institution was established in the premises belonging to Arinar Anna Government Arts College, during the academic year 2010 - 2011. In order to have a permanent campus, the Government of Puducherry, decided to acquire the lands situate in Thiruvettakudi Revenue Village. A notification under Section 4

(1) of Act 1 of 1984, was approved by the Government on 27.06.2011, and it was published in four modes, the dates of the publication are as follows:

(i) Tamil Daily - 30.06.2011 (ii) English Daily - 30.06.2011 (iii) State Gazette - 02.08.2011 (iv)Local Publication - 12.08.2011

4. Since the urgency provisions were invoked the declaration under 6 was approved by the Government on 29.07.2011 and published in English and Tamil dailies on 06.08.2011 in the Government Gazette on 10.08.2011, and the local publication was made on 24.08.2011. It is also contended that the possession of the lands were taken over on 23.02.2012 and handed over to the requisitioning department, namely the Education Department on 14.03.2012. It is also the contention of the land owners that

the 80% compensation payable to them as per Section 17 (3A) of Act 1 of 1984, was not paid to them, hence the proceedings were vitiated.

Pending the Writ Petitions interim stay of dispossession was also granted by this Court. The Writ Petitions were resisted by the Government of Puducherry contending that the proceedings for the land acquisition were made after strictly observing the procedure prescribed under Act 1 of 1984. The invocation of the urgency Clause was justified on the ground that the National Institute of Technology, which is a premier Institution, cannot be allowed to continue functioning in the campus of the Government Arts College. It was also the contention of the Government that since no final awards have been passed in view of the stay granted by this Court and the New Act viz. Act 30 of 2013 had come into force, the land owners will be entitled to determination of compensation under the new Act, in view of Section 24(1A) of Act 30 of 2013.

5. The learned Single Judge who heard the Writ Petitions allowed the same on two grounds, namely the invocation of the urgency clause was not justified and inasmuch as the actual physical possession had not been taken the proceedings would lapse in view of Section 24(2) of Act 30 of 2013. Insofar as the contention relating to the dates of publication in the local dailies and the Gazette, the learned Single Judge left the question open.

6. Aggrieved by the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings the state is before us by way of this intra Court Appeals.

7. We have heard Ms.V.Usha, learned Additional Government Pleader, Puducherry appearing for the appellants in all the appeals and Mr.S.Kanniah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents WA Nos.1704 of 2017, 27 to 29, 31 to 36 of 2018. The respondent in Writ Appeal No.30 of 2018, though served has not been chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.

8. Ms.V.Usha, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants would contend that the decision of the Government to invoke urgency provision cannot be subject matter of judicial review. Alternately, she would submit that such exercise of power by the Government to invoke the urgency provision, under Section 17(1) cannot be interfered with by the Court, unless it is shown that it is on the face of it arbitrary are actuated by mala fides. Insofar as the second ground on which, the learned Single Judge had quashed the land acquisition proceedings by invoking Section 24(2) of the Act 30 of 2013, the

learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that since no award had been passed, the question of invocation of Section 24(2) would not arise. She would submit that the case on hand would actually fall within the ambit of Section 24(1A) of Act 30 of 2013. According to her, Section 24(2) would come into play only when an award has been passed and five years had lapsed from the date of the award. Inasmuch as no award has been passed under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case on hand, the question of applying Section 24(2) would not arise. She would also draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aligarh Development Authority v. Megh Singh and Others, reported in 2016 (4) MLJ 662 (SC) in support of her contention.

9. Per contra, Mr.S.Kanniah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents land owners would submit that the invocation of emergency Clause and dispensing with Section 5(A) Enquiry was not at all justified on the facts of the case. He would submit that the National Institute of Technology had started functioning and therefore, there is no real urgency which would enable the Government to invoke Section 17 in order to dispense with 5(A) Enquiry. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhy Shyam (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2011 (5) SCC 553, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that invocation of urgency powers for implementation of schemes relating to the development of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas cannot be justified. Mr.S.Kanniah, learned counsel would also contend that the prerequisite of payment of 80% compensation, under Section 17(3A) of Act 1 of 1984 was not complied with and therefore, the entire acquisition is vitiated.

10. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as the applicability of Act 30 of 2013 is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was not right in concluding that the acquisition proceedings would lapse, because of the failure on the part of the Government to take possession of the lands in question. Section 24(2) of Act 30 of 2013, reads as follows:

"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the

appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

11. A reading of Section 24(2) would make it clear that an acquisition would lapse only in cases were an award has been made, under Section 11 of Act 1 of 1984 and 5 years had lapsed after passing of the award and possession of the land has not been taken by the Government, where no award is passed in the case would really fall under Section 24(1A) and not under Section 24(2). The two conditions in Section 24(2) would apply only when an award has been passed under Section 11 of the Act 1 of 1984. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion considered the very question as to whether Section 24(2) could be invoked in a case, where an award has not been passed in Aligarh Development Authority v. Megh Singh and Others, reported in 2016

(4) MLJ 662 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealing with the said question observed as follows:

"6. Section 24 of the 2013 Act envisages mainly two situations;

i) where the land acquisition proceedings had already been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award was passed till the date the new Act came into force.

(ii) where the Award has been passed but neither the owner has been dispossessed nor has he been paid the compensation.

Under the first, where the award had not been passed, the acquisition proceedings could continue; but the compensation will have to be determined under the scheme of 2013 Act. Under the second category, there is a statutory lapsing of the proceedings. There is also an incidental third situation, where award under the 1894 Act had already been passed prior to coming into force of the 2013 Act, but payment is yet to be made and possession is yet to be taken. In that case, the further proceedings after the award could continue under the old Act of 1894; but if either payment or

possession has not taken effect in five years prior to the 2013 Act, then proceedings will lapse.

7. In the case before us, since admittedly the award has not been passed, there arises no question of lapse. The land acquisition proceedings would continue but with the rider that the award will have to be passed and compensation determined under the provisions of 2013 Act."

In view of the above categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that no award under Section 11 has been passed in the case on hand, we do not think that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the proceedings would lapse under Section 24(2) for possession having not been taken.

12. Insofar as the other contention relating to invocation of emergency clause, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the Government had applied its mind and found that the emergency provisions had to be invoked. The sequence of events would go to show that the Government had acted with sufficient caution with regard to the acquisition proceedings, in order to justify the invocation of emergency provisions. The 4(1) notification was approved by the Government on 27.06.2011 and the consequential declaration under Section 6 was made on 29.07.2011. There has been some delay in publication of the notifications in the Government Gazette, that by itself, in our considered opinion, will not obviate the necessity for invoking the urgency provisions contained in Section 17(A) of the Act.

No doubt true, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhy Shyam's case, referred to supra, had held that ordinarily the urgency provisions cannot be resorted to for planning, execution and implementation of schemes relating to development of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas. In the case on hand, the urgency provisions have been resorted to for establishment of a National Institute of Technology, which is a premier institution, which is hitherto functioning in the portion of the Government Arts College. The necessity for establishment of an independent campus for such premier institution cannot be disputed.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust v. Union of India and others, reported in 2012 (11) SCC 370, had after referring to Anand Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2010 (11) SCC 242, had held that there cannot be a uniform rule that urgency provisions under Section 17 of Act 1 of 1984 cannot be invoked for certain purposes. When urgency provisions are invoked, it is for the appropriate Government to justify the absolute necessity for invocation of

the urgency provisions. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:

"15. If the government seeks to invoke its power of urgency, it has to first form the opinion that the land for the stated public purpose is urgently needed. Such opinion has to be founded on the need for immediate possession of the land for carrying out the purpose for which land is sought to be compulsorily acquired. The use of power of urgency under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act ipso facto does not result in elimination of enquiry under Section 5(A) and, therefore, if the government intends to eliminate enquiry, then it has to apply its mind on the aspect that urgency is of such nature that necessitates elimination of such enquiry. The satisfaction of the government on twin aspects viz; (i) need for immediate possession of the land for carrying out the stated purpose and (ii) urgency is such that necessitates dispensation of enquiry is a must and permits no departure for a valid exercise of power under Section 17(1) and (4)."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further observed as follows: "19. Where the government invokes urgency power under Section 17(1) and (4) for the public purpose like 'planned development of city' or 'development of residential area' or 'Residential Scheme', the initial presumption in favour of the government does not arise and the burden lies on the government to prove that the use of power was justified and dispensation of enquiry was necessary. In the present case, the respondents have miserably failed to show to the satisfaction of the Court that power of urgency and dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A has been exercised with justification. The action of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, in the facts of the case whereby he directed that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply, if allowed to stand, it would amount to depriving a person of his property without authority of law."

14. In order to find out whether the Government had a justifiable reason for invoking the emergency powers, we had directed the Land Acquisition Officer to produce the files relating to the acquisition. The proposal to establish a National Institute of Technology in Karaikal was approved by the

Government of India on 30.10.2009, pursuant to the same, the Government of Puducherry, issued a Government order in G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 29.03.2010 for establishing a National Institute of Technology at Karaikal.

15. Pursuant to the same, the Collector of Karaikal was designated as a Nodal Officer for establishing a National Institute of Technology at Karaikal. The site Selection Committee formed by the Nodal Officer met on 05.07.2010 and the decision was taken to acquire certain lands in Thiruvettakudi Village at Karaikal of Puducherry Union Territory. The nodal officer drew up the proposals for acquisition and forwarded them to the Government of Puducherry and the proposals were approved by the Government only on 24.06.2011.

Thereafter, on 27.06.2011, a notification under 4(1) was issued. The declaration under Section 6 was issued immediately thereafter on 29.07.2011. Therefore, the invocation of emergency provisions cannot be found fault with.

16. As regards payment of 80% compensation, it is seen that the Collector had conducted an enquiry on 23.02.2012 and had fixed the compensation and the same was offered to the owners. The majority of the land owners except the respondents herein have received the compensation. From the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub Collector Revenue, Karaikal, it is seen that the 80% compensation determined as payable to the respondents was deposited in a Civil Court inasmuch as they had not come forward to receive the compensation. The files also disclosed that the possession of the lands was taken on 23.02.2012.

17. The learned Single Judge had concluded that the purpose of acquisition, namely establishment of National Institute of Technology, by itself does not brook any urgency, inasmuch as the Institute had already been established in the Government Arts College, Karaikal. We do not think that the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that the very purpose did not warrant invocation of emergency provisions, under Section 17 of the Act 1 of 1984. As already pointed out it is for the Government to decide whether the urgency powers should be invoked. All that it is required of the Government is to show that the invocation of urgency powers was absolutely necessary and the same was not arbitrary and mala fide at the given point of the time. After going to the files, we find that the conscious decision was taken by the Government of Puducherry to invoke the urgency provisions to acquire the lands. Therefore, we do not think that the learned Single Judge was right in concluding that the invocation of urgency powers is bad, solely based on the purpose of acquisition.

18. Inasmuch as we have held that both the grounds on which the acquisition was quashed by the learned Single Judge are not sustainable, we are constrained to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge and accordingly these Writ Appeals are allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.04.2016 made in the Writ Petitions is set aside, the Writ Petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

19. In view of the enactment of Act 30 of 2013, in the interregnum, we had posed the question to the learned Additional Government Pleader, as to how the compensation will be determined. The learned Additional Government Pleader pointing out the ground No.12, of the grounds of appeal would submit that the Government had conceded that Section 24(1) of the Act would apply and it would pass an award, in terms of Section 24(1A) of the Act 30 of 2013. We therefore make it clear that the Government should pass an award in terms of Section 24 (1A) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The said award shall be passed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the compensation so determined shall be paid to the respondents as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. Needless to say that if the land owners are not satisfied with the award they would at liberty to seek appropriate relief for enhanced compensation, as per the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar jv To

1. The Special Secretary to Govt., Government of Puducherry, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry.

2. Sub-Collector (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Office of the Sub Collector, Karaikal.

3. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Office of the Tahsildar, Karaikal.

+1 CC to Govt. Pleader, Pondicherry sr 54592. +1 CC to Mr.S. Kanniah, Advocate sr 54602.

W.A.No.1704 of 2017 , WA Nos.27 to 36 of 2018 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions PP(CO) SP(25/09/2018)