This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records comprised in impugned communication in Na.Ka.No.29/2011 A, dated 29.7.2011 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same with consequential direction directing the second respondent to grant the compensation as claimed by the petitioner or refer the case to the first respondent for determination of compensation as per section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997.
ORDER
1. This writ petition came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
2.The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the land in Survey Nos.35/1 in No.158, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 29.7.2011 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition for SIPCOT, Irungattukottai Extension Scheme, Unit-I. The said order came to be passed pursuant to the direction issued by this court in W.P.No.28406 of 2010, dated 22.12.2010.
3.In the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, he sought for a direction to dispose of his representation dated 23.08.2010. By the said representation sent to the second respondent Special Tahsildar, the petitioner claimed that when the acquisition of his land was made, he had agreed to part with his land after receiving the compensation of Rs.150/- per square feet. As per his consent, he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.74,32,500/-. But he had received only Rs.24,64,000/-. As per the gazette notification for acquiring land dated 12.3.2008, the extent of land was mentioned only in square meters. Therefore, the compensation should be awarded in terms of the square meters. It was also stated that even as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.141, Industries SIPCOT-LA Department, dated 14.7.2008, he is entitled to get Rs.100/- per sq.ft as his property was situated with approach roads on three sides. Therefore, he claimed the balance amount of Rs.25,91,000/- or in alternative he sought for directing his case to the District Collector in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act for determination of the compensation.
4.After sending the representation, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to dispose of his representation. This court even without notice to the requisitioning body, i.e., the third respondent State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (for short SIPCOT), had ordered the representation to be considered by the second respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. It is pursuant to that direction the impugned reply came to be sent to the petitioner. In that impugned communication, the second respondent had informed the petitioner that fixed value for the property in S.No.35/1 to an extent of 1.12 acres as per the Government estimation was only Rs.22 lakhs and that already a sum of Rs.24,64,000/- has been paid to the petitioner as on 1.7.2010. As per the registered sale deed, by which the petitioner came to possess the land, the extent of land was shown as 1.12 acres. It was only on that basis, the compensation was arrived at. Therefore, there was no possibility for the grant of higher compensation to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
5.The writ petition was admitted on 30.08.2011. When the matter came up on 02.01.2012, this court directed the District Collector, Kancheepuram to file a counter affidavit. A counter affidavit, dated 30.11.2011 came to be filed by the second respondent. Though the petitioner filed an application for fixing an early date of hearing of the writ petition, no orders have been passed so far. The learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to circulate the original file relating to the petitioner's case, which was accordingly circulated for perusal by this court.
6.Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Magesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for SIPCOT (R-3).
7.It is seen from the records that the petitioner's land together with others land were sought to be acquired for expansion of Irungattukkotai Industrial Complex by the SIPCOT in Pillaipakkam, Vengadu, Navalur and Irumbedu villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk. An administrative sanction was given by the State Government by G.O.No.138, Industries Department, dated 03.11.2006 to acquire 349.51.0 hectares of patta lands. The writ petitioner is the purchaser of the land in S.No.35/1 in Pillaipakkam village by a registered sale deed dated 4.2.2002. The said land is situated in the midst of the scheme area on Block No.2 of Unit-I. The area was kept vacant at the time when the acquisition process took place. Form-A notice under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 was approved by the District Collector by proceedings dated 03.10.2007. Notices were sent to the land owners and the interested persons by a registered post on 03.10.2007. Form 'B' publication of notice was issued calling for objections within 30 days from the date of publication. The local publication by way of tom tom in the village was also made on 16.10.2007. It was also published in the local offices as well as in two dailies, one in Tamil and one in English on 17.10.2007. Out of 346 persons covered by the notification, 26 objection petitions were received within the stipulated period. The objections received from the land owners were sent to the requisitioning body, i.e., third respondent and their remarks were obtained.
8.Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted on 21.11.2007 by the District Collector. The 26 land owners/interested persons have appeared for the enquiry. Though the land was converted into house sites, the lands were kept vacant and that no building and no superstructures were raised in the land. Since the lands were acquired for public purpose, the first respondent District Collector had ordered that the acquisition may be proceeded with publication of notice under Section 3(1) of the Act. The said notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.75, dated 12.3.2008. By virtue of the notification issued under Section 3(1) and in terms of Section 4(1), the lands to which the said notice was issued, from the date of such publication, will vest absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances. The Collector is thereafter is entitled to take possession of the land. Therefore, the notices were issued under Section 4(2) on 24.03.2008 asking the land owners to surrender their possession of land. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 3.4.2008. The petitioner had received the compensation without any protest.
9.The other allegations regarding the consent letter given by the petitioner was denied by the respondents. In paragraph 15 of the counter it was stated as follows:
15....It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner alleges that he gave consent letter to the second respondent agreeing to receive the compensation for a sum of Rs.150/- per sq.ft. Where as he further alleges that he requested the second respondent on many occasions that the compensation may be awarded in sq. meters. It is submitted that the request of the petitioner has been dealt with in accordance with the procedures and that there is no infirmity crept in the proceedings in any manner.
10.Even when this court on the earlier occasion directed his representation to be considered, a personal notice was sent to the petitioner, but he did not appear for the personal hearing. In this writ petition it is clear that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the acquisition. But he was only interested in getting the higher compensation. As to how the higher compensation can be claimed is set out in Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. In the present case, as noted from records, the petitioner had received the compensation without any protest on 1.7.2010. There is nothing on record to show that within 60 days from the date of such decision, he required the matter for reference to the appropriate forum for claiming higher compensation. As can be seen from Section 8, this section borrows the provisions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under Section 18, a person whose land was acquired, if he does not accept the award, will have to make a written application to the District Collector and request the matter to be referred. A limitation of six weeks from the date of the Collector's Award if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector when the Award is made or six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's Award is provided. But in the present circumstances, Section 8 has borrowed only the procedure for reference under Section 18. But with reference to limitation Section 8 clearly states that it should be done within 60 days from the date of the decision.
11.The petitioner had not only received the amount by passing on a stamped receipt for the compensation awarded to him, but had also never protested regarding the alleged low rate of compensation. In fact, long after the notification under Section 3(1) read with Section 4, , the petitioner for the first time sent a representation dated 23.8.2010. The compensation in this case was determined well before the limitation prescribed under the Act.
12.In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545, wherein the Supreme Court had summarised the scope of Section 18 reference. In paragraph 28(iv) the Supreme Court had observed as follows: 28.(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award.
13.As to whether the provisions of the Limitation Act can be invoked in the matter of reference under Section 18 of the Central Act or even if any amendment is made in the local enactment to the Land Acquisition Act, the Supreme Court has held vide its judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman reported in (2005) 8 SCC 709 that such provision cannot be invoked and even the land owner loses the right to make such application. In this context, it is necessary to refer to paragraphs 15, 26 and 27 of the said judgment which reads as follows: 15.This Court has also held that in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act before the authorities under that Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application. [See Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal (1996) 9 SCC 414]. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be resorted to while making an application under Section 18(1) of the Act and the application has to be made within the period fixed by Section 18(2) of the Act.
26.Then the question is, whether in the context of Section 18 of the Karnataka amendment, the decision of this Court in Thakoredas and our discussion as above, Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked or would apply to an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act. This Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to proceedings before the Collector or Deputy Commissioner here, while entertaining an application for reference. We see no reason not to accept that position. Then arises the question whether Section 5 could be invoked before the Land Acquisition Court while making an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act. We have held in agreement with the earlier Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, that the right to have a reference enforced through court or through the Deputy Commissioner becomes extinguished on the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of the application for reference made in time. Consistent with this position it has necessarily to be held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be available since the consequence of not enforcing the right to have a reference made on the scheme of Section 18 of the Act, as obtaining in Karnataka, is to put an end to the right to have a reference at all. Since in that sense it is an extinguishment of the right, the right cannot be revived by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We may incidentally notice that in Thakoredas this Court rejected the application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act which was beyond time, though, of course, there was no specific discussion on this aspect.
27.An application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act is to compel a reference by the Deputy Commissioner. We have held that on the expiry of three years and 90 days from the date of the application for reference seeking enhancement the right of the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference comes to an end. In that context, and in the context of the fact that the claimant himself loses his right to move the court for compelling a reference, it is not possible to hold that by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Land Acquisition Court the claimant can get over the bar to the remedy created by Section 18 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application while approaching the court under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act and if the application is not within the time as indicated above, the same has only to be dismissed as was done in Thakoredas case.
14.Further, in his affidavit the petitioner has nowhere stated about the compensation amount received by him. In this case, the acquisition has been made by the exercise of power under the Act and not by any consent letter given by the petitioner. In the absence of the petitioner having availed the remedy of reference, he cannot sent a representation. Further he sought the representation to be disposed of by exparte direction given to the respondents and thereafter when a reply was sent, he filed the second round of litigation. Hence there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands dismissed as infructuous.