Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1057 (MAD)

R. Kothandapani v. District Collector, Dindigul

2015-02-23

B.RAJENDRAN

body2015
Judgment 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to refer the proceedings in Award No.1/1983 dated 30.03.1983 in respect of land in S.No.1668/3 of Vadamadurai Village and under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Land Acquisition Tribunal and pass suitable order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the lands belonging to him was acquired by the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1982. According to the petitioner, though he has objected for the land acquisition, no reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Though enquiry was conducted, no award was passed with the knowledge of the petitioner. Infact, on representations and RTI Act, he came to know that the Award had already been passed and the matter was referred to Sub-Court, Dindigul District for deciding the question of apportionment of compensation. Thereafter, he has filed the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 3. The learned Government Advocate through his counter affidavit would submit that no application has been filed for enhancement of compensation as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the petitioner, at the relevant point of time. No doubt, he has objected to acquiring the land in question. Further, the entire award amount has already been deposited in the year 1983 itself. More than 30 years had elapsed since the date of award. Therefore, the limitation will come into play for considering the relief of the petitioner. 4. Heard both sides, By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. A bare perusal of the affidavit would submit that the petitioner has not made any application under Section 18(2) of the Act for enhancement of compensation. But, atleast after reference under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner should have taken steps. Infact, under the Right to Information Act, it has been clearly stated that even though he sought for enhancement of price, he did not make any application under Section 18(2) of the Act. Therefore, this Writ Petition as such cannot be maintained since it is barred by limitation. But, the petitioner will be definitely entitled to get the compensation originally ordered by the Court below for the lands acquired by the respondents. Therefore, this Writ Petition as such cannot be maintained since it is barred by limitation. But, the petitioner will be definitely entitled to get the compensation originally ordered by the Court below for the lands acquired by the respondents. He claims that he has not received the amount from the Court concerned. 6. In view of the long passage of time, the authorities are directed to see that the matter in question under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is taken up within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been disposed of, till date. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.