IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:
04. 11.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.Nos.29250 and 29251 of 2013 1.R.Ramamoorthy 2.Mrs.Jankavalli Varadarajan 3.Miss Susheela (Petitioners 2 and 3 are represented by their Power Agent, 1st petitioner) ... Petitioner in both WPs. vs 1. The District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Highways), Collectorate of Chennai, Chennai-1.
2. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Highways), Inner Ring Road (Southern Sector), Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai 600 078. ... Respondents in both WPs. Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein to refer the matter relating to the determination of compensation, in respect of Award No.1 of 2009, dated 02.01.2009, of the 1st respondent herein, insofar as it relates to the petitioners, to the competent Civil Court for determination of the appropriate compensation by civil Court, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. For Petitioners : Mr.A.C.Kumarakurubaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP ORDER
The petitioners have sought for a Mandamus, directing the District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Highways), Collectorate of Chennai, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, to refer the matter relating to the determination of compensation, in respect of Award No.1 of 2009, dated 02.01.2009, of the 1st respondent herein, insofar as it relates to the petitioners' lands, to the competent Civil Court, for determination of the appropriate compensation, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
2. Material on record discloses that for formation of Southern Sector Inner Ring Road between Velachery to St.Thomas Mount, an extent of 11 cents in Survey No.664/2B, belonging to the petitioner has been acquired. Award No.1/2009 dated 2.1.2009 has been passed determining compensation of Rs.102/- per sq.ft.
3. Material on record further discloses that the compensation determined for the extent of land acquired from the petitioner has been tendered on 25.02.2009. According to the first petitioner, the power of attorney, the compensation determined was not adequate and hence, under protest, the amount was received. Thereafter, the petitioners caused a lawyer's notice dated 20.05.2009 to the District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Highways), Collectorate of Chennai, Chennai 1, first respondent, and the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Highways), Inner Ring Road (Southern Sector), Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai, second respondent herein, to refer the matter under Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The first petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft..
4. In response to the request stated supra, the District Collector of Chennai has sent reply vide Letter No.MG/LA 05 / 2003, dated 30.08.2012 stating that the petition dated 20.05.2009 of Thiru.M.D.Tharanipathi, Advocate, on behalf of his client Thiru.R.Ramamoorthy, was received in the Office of the District Collector, Chennai, on 2.6.2009 and that the said petition not being made in time, cannot be referred to Civil Court, as per section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
5. The petitioners have not challenged the reply dated 30.08.2012 of the District Collector, Chennai by a Writ of Certiorari, but in this Writ Petition, a mandamus directing the District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Highways), Collectorate of Chennai, Chennai 1, first respondent, to refer the matter relating to determiantion of compensation in respect of Award No.1 of 2009 dated 2.1.2009, has been sought for, insofar as it relates to the lands owned by the petitioners through a Court of law, having competent jurisdiction for determination as per Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
6. Placing reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Limited, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. The Salem Urukkalai Thittathal Nilam Ilanthor Sangam and others (Writ Appeal No.1073 of 1992, dated 13.12.2005) reported in 2006 (1) TNLJ (Civil) 154, Mr.A.C.Kumarakurubaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is suffice, if a protest is made by the land owners regarding the inadequacy of compensation and in the case of dissatisfaction of the quantum of compensation, without there being anything in writing, a duty or obligation is cast upon the the District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Highways), Collectorate of Chennai, Chennai1, first respondent, to refer the matter to a Court of law, having competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and that therefore, the the District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Highways), Collectorate of Chennai, Chennai-1, first respondent, ought not to have declined to refer the matter to the Court, citing that the petition dated 20.05.2009 has not been made in time. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
7. Before adverting to the above said contentions, this Court deems it fit to extract Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. ".20. (1) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, or the officer to whom the case was transferred, determining the amount may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, in so far as it affects him, by application to the Collector or the officer to whom the case was transferred, require that the matter be referred by him for the determination of the Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and when any such application is made, the provisions of part III of the said Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceedings in respect thereof. (2) The decision of the Court on such reference and subject only to such decision of the Collector determining the amount shall be final.".
8. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Steel Authority of India Limited, Salem Steel Plant, Salem v. The Salem Urukkalai Thittathal Nilam Ilanthor Sangam and others (Writ Appeal No.1073 of 1992, dated 13.12.2005) reported in 2006 (1) TNLJ (Civil) 154, has been reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 29th July' 2009 and therefore, the natural corollary would be that the land owner ought to have filed an application for reference, as per Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu National Highways Act, within sixty days from the date of determination of the compensation.
9. Admittedly, the Award has been passed on 2.1.2009 and the amount has been tendered on 25.2.2009. According to the petitioners, an endorsement has been made to the effect that they are willing to receive the compensation awarded, under protest. As the application has been submitted belatedly, the same has not been considered for reference. There is no manifest illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference.
10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 04.11.2013 skm To 1. The District Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Highways), Collectorate of Chennai, Chennai-1. S.MANIKUMAR, J skm 2. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Highways), Inner Ring Road (Southern Sector), Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai 600 078. W.P.Nos.29250 and 29251 of 2013 04.11.2013