Elumalai v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 06.12.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE W.P.No.33101 of 2016 M.P.No.18873 of 2017 W.P.No.33101 of 2016 M.P.No.18873 of 2017

1. Elumalai

2. Rajendran

3. Mani

4. Pattammal

5. Narayanan

6. Paramasivam

7. Subramanian

8. Pachaiyappan

9. Nallammal

10. Mani

11. Ramamoorthy

12. Subramani

13. Ramajayam

14. Kumar

15. Sulochana

16. Thirumalai

17. Gnanasekar

18. Amirthammal

19. Radhakrishnan

20. Dakshinamoorthy

21. Saravanan

22. Ramamoorthy

23. Sundaram

24. Panneer

25. Soundar Rajan

26. Malarkodi

27. Sundaram

28. Selvakumar

29. Vijayakumar

30. Dhanapal

31. Karpagammal

32. Annadurai

33. Kumar

34. Natarajan

35. Murugan

36. Sivakavi

37. K.R.Sivaprakasam

38. Vasantha

39. Sheik Munavar Ali

40. Jayachandran

41. Shanmugam

42. Rajendran

43. Tharuman

44. Subramaniyan

45. Kumarasamy

46. Kuppusamy

47. Ambika

48. Vijayaraj

49. Samikannu

50. Kamalakannan

51. Sekar alias Kumaravel

52. Raja

53. Chandrasekar

54. Puspha

55. Parasuraman

56. Pannerselvam

57. Asothai Ammal

58. Santhi

59. Amutha

60. Master Balaji S/o.Tamizh Arasan

61. Minor Subash S/o.Tamizh Arasan Minors respondents 60 & 61 are represented by their guardian Asothai Ammal

62. Balasubramanian

63. Selvaraj

64. Ravichandran

65. Sironmani

66. Domininsaviyo ... Petitioners vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government,

2.

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, 3.

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Thiruvannamalai ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation for their lands on the basis of petitioners' representations to the respondents on 25.07.2016 in the light of the order dated 04.03.2016, passed in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub-Ordinate Court at Thiruvannamalai within a stipulated time framed by this Court.

1. K.Krishnamoorthy

2. Maria Joseph

3. Arokia Raj

4. Victor

5. Kalliappan

6. Narayanan

7. Thirunavukarasu

8. Jeyachandrran

9. Arasu ... Petitioners Vs.

1.

The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government, 2.

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, 3.

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Thiruvannamalai ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation for their lands on the basis of petitioners' representations to the 2nd respondent on 25.07.2016 and 12.09.2016 in the light of the order dated 04.03.2016, passed in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub-Ordinate Court at Thiruvannamalai within a stipulated time framed by this Court.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Elango for Mr.C.Mahendran For Respondents : Mr.K.Balamurugan, Govt. Advocate C O M M O N O R D E R

1. The common point involved in this batch of cases, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, in the year 2003, the respondents 2 and 3 approached the petitioners to part with their lands for the purpose of forming a by-pass road from Tiruvannamalai to Tirukkovilur under Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project and had promised that they would be paid the just valuation of the lands as per law. Trusting the said representation of the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners agreed to part with their lands. Price of the lands were also fixed anywhere between Rs.250/- to Rs.300 per cent according to the location and character. However, two of the villagers namely, Raja and Vijayakumar declined to part with their lands for the said project by private negotiation.

Accordingly, the Government was constrained to acquire the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award was passed in their case, but both Raja and Vijayakumar felt aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference made by the Collector was enquired by the learned Principal SubCourt, Tiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2009. On 04.03.2016, the Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai allowed L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2009 and the compensation for the acquired land was increased to Rs.67/- per sq.ft., from Rs.275/- per cent as determined by the 2nd respondent in his award. According to the learned counsel this award of the Sub-Court has become final.

2. The learned counsel added that the petitioners herein are poor, essentially illiterate agriculturist who trusted the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai to pay them the value of their land and they now feel that they are cheated, that their lands have not been properly valued by the Collector and trusted the judgment of the collector which has been breached. Hence, they moved the Collector with a representation dated 25.07.2016

in the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.33101 of 2016 and another representation dated 12.09.2016 in the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.36778 of 2016.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has made the submissions based on the ground that the petitioners, insofar as they have sold the lands in private negotiation they are not entitled to seek compensation in par with the others whose lands were acquired where the valuation was not fixed in any award of the District Collector but by the Court and hence they can invoke Section 28 A of Land Acquisition Act, that they have not been discriminated in the matter of fixation of compensation, since the 2nd respondent has fixed the valuation of the lands of those two individuals against whom acquisition proceedings were initiated, only at Rs.275/- per cent, which is well within the range of Rs.250/- and Rs.300/- which even learned counsel for the petitioners admit.

4. Without going into the merits of the rival submissions inasmuch as the petitioners only require the District Collector to consider their representation and to explore the feasibility to pay one of the citizens who trusted his judgment in the matter of fixing the compensation payable. After all, that is required and expected in fairness and non-arbitrariness in state action.

5. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners in both the writ petitions within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. The petitioners may also be granted personal hearing and shall also be permitted to place such relevant materials for consideration of the 2nd respondent while disposing the petitioners' representations. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssn To 1.

The Principal Sub-Ordinate Court,

2.

The Secretary to Government, 3.

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, 4.

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, +2ccs to Mr.C.Mahendran, Advocate, S.R.No.87023 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.87386 W.P.No.33101 of 2016 M.P.No.18873 of 2017 NRK(CO) CS/19/01/18