Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 838 (MAD)

M. Loganathan v. Government of Tamilnadu

2012-02-16

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification issued by the State Government u/s. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner. 2. The State of Tamilnadu issued a notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.03.2007. The notice was published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette as also in the local newspaper and substance of notice was also advertised in the locality. 3. Thereafter notification u/s.6 was also issued on 14.05.2008, after considering the objection u/s. 5(A). The notification u/s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued after following the process of law. Thereafter after hearing the land owners award was passed on 21.05.2010. 4. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that before passing of award, the land owners had filed similar writ petitions W.P.Nos.761 to 765/2009 to The challenge to notification issued u/s. 4 and 6. It is not disputed that these writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge was confirmed in writ appeal, and the special leave petition filed against the decision was also dismissed. 5. The stand of the petitioner is that review has been filed against the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the review petition is yet to be numbered. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that notification u/s. 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition is without jurisdiction, in as much as it has been issued by authority not competent to issue such notification. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 4 (1) has been amended by the State of Tamilnadu, and the jurisdiction of the Collector to issue notification u/s. 4 is only with respect to the land not exceeding 40 acres and the value to which does exceed Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only), whereas the commissioner can issue notification upto 75 acres where the value does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs only) and State Government is required to issue notification in all other cases. 8. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the compensation granted by the Collector, it is revealed that the value of the land was more than Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore the notification could have been issued by the State Government, and not by the Collector or the Commissioner. Therefore, the whole proceedings stands vitiated. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends, that the notification issued u/s. 4 is also not as per the Act as amended, the notification was wrongly shown to have been issued on behalf of appropriate Government, though signed by the Collector, further more the exercise of power by the Tahsildar, as a delegate of Collector also cannot be sustained as the delegate cannot further delegate. 10. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition, firstly for the reason that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition after the passing of the award on 21.05.2010, as on passing of award the land vests free from all encumbrances with the state and petitioner ceases to have any interest in the land (Except right to claim market value). 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification u/s. 4 is vitiated because it was issued by the Collector, also cannot be sustained, as it is not disputed, as at the time of assessing of the value of the land, the value was assured at Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only). The order of the Collector who had issued notification subsequently on appreciation of evidence by land owners and the State Government in granting compensation at market value exceeding the assessed value cannot be a ground to challenge notification. If this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is accepted there will be no binding to the notification, as the compensation is enhanced from time to time right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12. Therefore, in the event of compensation being enhanced after the date of notification, it cannot be a ground to challenge the notification. The amendment in Section 4 only stipulates the issuance of notification in view of the value as assessed at the time of acquisition, and not finally determined. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also deserves to be rejected for the reason that in objection filed u/s.5(A) no such plea was raised by the petitioner. The amendment in Section 4 only stipulates the issuance of notification in view of the value as assessed at the time of acquisition, and not finally determined. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also deserves to be rejected for the reason that in objection filed u/s.5(A) no such plea was raised by the petitioner. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Collector has delegated his powers to the Tahsildar, also cannot be sustained as only ministrial work has been done by the Tahsildar, whereas the objections were decided by the Collector u/s. 5(A). It cannot be said to be vitiated the acquisition proceedings. 15. The petitioner had placed reliance on the previous writ petitions, which was said to be pending in this court at the time of admission of this writ petition, after the dismissal of those writ petitions, the decision attained finality up to Supreme Court, it is not now open the petitioner to say that the grounds in this petition are different from this writ. No merits. Dismissed.