Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 459 (MAD)

M. P. Kalaiselvan v. District Collector, Madurai

2019-02-18

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents the complete the proceedings as per the first respondent's communication dated 22.02.2012 and to pay the entire compensation with solatium, interest and other lawful amount, if any, in the light of Right to Fair Compensation Act, 10/1999 for industrial purpose land acquisition proceedings, prevailing market rate. etc., within the period stipulated by this Court. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his lands in S.No.457(1A4) measuring 0.24.0 hectares (i.e.,) 15 cents 60 feet of Punja lands situated 1½ kilometers of Madurai Airport has been acquired by the respondents vide notification dated 16.02.2009 to the respective land owners requesting to appear before the Collector on 09.04.2009 for enquiry. According to the petitioner, even after the lands were acquired as early as on 09.04.2009, the compensation has not been awarded to the petitioner. According to him, he gave a representation to the first respondent on 18.01.2012 and requested them to fix the compensation at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, as per the prevailing market value. Along with the representation, he has also submitted a copy of the sale deed dated 21.02.2008 registered as document No.1994 of 2008 wherein the market rate per acre was Rs. 2,10,000/-. One more representation was given by the petitioner on 20.01.2012, wherein he had sought from the respondents an acknowledgment for the document submitted by him earlier. Further representations were also given on 20.01.2012 as well as on 29.07.2016 requesting the respondent to complete the process for awarding of compensation at the earliest. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.6099 of 2017 for a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 29.07.2016. This Court by its order dated 09.11.2017 directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 29.07.2016 submitted by the petitioner and directed them to pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order in the light of the communication of the first respondent dated 22.02.2012. 4. Since the respondents did not comply with the order dated 09.11.2017 passed in W.P.(MD) No.6099 of 2017, the petitioner issued a contempt notice to the respondents on 30.01.2018. 4. Since the respondents did not comply with the order dated 09.11.2017 passed in W.P.(MD) No.6099 of 2017, the petitioner issued a contempt notice to the respondents on 30.01.2018. By the reply dated 19.03.2018, the respondents informed the petitioner that effective steps for deciding and disbursement of the compensation were being taken by them. Thereafter, the petitioner gave another representation dated 30.07.2018 for which the second respondent sent a communication dated 24.08.2018 requesting the petitioner to submit all the original documents for scrutiny. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed contempt petitioner namely Cont.P(MD) No.1656 of 2018 for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.6099 of 2017. The contempt petition was closed by order dated 29.11.2018 stating that the order was complied. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that no compensation was paid to him. Even though by communication dated 19.03.2018, the respondents have informed the petitioner that compensation claim of the petitioner is under consideration before the Commissioner of Land Administration and as soon as his consent is received, the compensation will be paid. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that similarly placed owners of the lands in the same area have been paid their compensation. But the petitioner alone has not been paid his compensation. In all those cases, awards have been passed and compensation has been paid to the land owners. According to the petitioner, the respondents have deliberately omitted to pay the petitioner on par with other adjoining land owners, whose lands have also been acquired. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 7. Heard Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 8. There is no dispute that the said lands of the petitioner have been acquired by the respondent for expansion of the Madurai Airport. It is also not a dispute that only pursuant to the notification dated 16.02.2009, lands were acquired for Industrial Purpose in the light of Right to fair Compensation Act, 10/1999. As seen from the averments contained in the writ petition, several representations were made by the petitioner requesting the respondents to pass compensation award for the lands acquired belonging to the petitioner. As seen from the averments contained in the writ petition, several representations were made by the petitioner requesting the respondents to pass compensation award for the lands acquired belonging to the petitioner. It is also seen from the averments that similarly placed persons whose lands have been acquired have been paid with compensation and they have also been paid only belatedly. No acquisition of lands under Industrial Purpose Act, 10/1999 contemplates determination of compensation within a period of six months under section 7(11) of the Act. The date of occurrence in the instant case is that ten years have lapsed since notification was issued by the respondents for acquisition of the petitioner's lands, Therefore, there is merit in the prayer sought for in this writ petition. 9. In the result, the respondents are directed to complete the acquisition proceedings and pass an award of compensation payable to the petitioner within a period of six(06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.