Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 801 (MAD)

R. Raj v. District Collector, Tuticorin

2023-03-03

K.KUMARESH BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT (PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the petitioner''s representation dated 28.11.2014 with regard to award of compensation for acquiring the lands of the petitioner comprised in S.No.598/ 3B2 etc., with an extent of 1.89.5 hectare (4.56 Acres) at Mavilpatti Village, Etayapuram Taluk, tuticorin District.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is seeking for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner''s representation dated 28.11.2014 with regard to award of compensation for acquiring the lands of the petitioner comprised in S.No.598/ 3B2 etc., with an extent of 1.89.5 hectare (4.56 Acres) at Mavilpatti Village, Etayapuram Taluk, Tuticorin District. 2. Heard Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lands of the petitioner have been acquired for construction of Golwarpatti Reservoir Scheme on 01.10.1989 along with various other lands in the villages. The lands belonging to the petitioner measuring an extent of 1.89.5 hectares in S.No.598/3B2 etc were acquired. However, no compensation was paid to the petitioner or other agriculturists. When the land has been acquired by the respondents, they ought to have paid compensation to the petitioner. Nonpayment of compensation to the petitioner is in violation of Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid prayer. 4. Countering his arguments, Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that for excavation of Canal under Golwarpatti Reservoir Scheme, enter upon permission was granted during 1989 and the excavation of supply channel has also been completed in the year 1990. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 08.01.2004 and declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was also published on 25.02.2005. But, no award was passed within the stipulated period of two years and therefore, the notification issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act had lapsed. 5. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 08.01.2004 and declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was also published on 25.02.2005. But, no award was passed within the stipulated period of two years and therefore, the notification issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act had lapsed. 5. In the interregnum, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and therefore, proposals have been sent for administrative sanction for effective implementation of the new Act and the instructions are also awaited in that regard. By further instructions issued by the fourth respondent dated 22.02.2023 in Na.Ka.Aa.No.1/3634/2006, he had stated that if the Public Works Department sanctions the compensation as per the new Act, the compensation amount could be disbursed to the land owners. Hence, he would pray this Court that the writ petition as prayed for should not be entertained. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side. 7. It is an admitted case that the lands of the petitioner were utilized for drawing of canal under the Golwarpatti Reservoir Scheme as early as in the year 1990. While implementing the scheme, no land acquisition proceeding has been initiated. What was initiated in the year 2004 had also got lapsed in view of the fact that the award has not been passed. 8. From the counter affidavit, it could be seen that in spite of a draft proposal, no further land acquisition proceeding has been initiated. It is a trite law that the State cannot interfere and dispossess a person except in accordance with the procedure established by law. This right had been crystallized as a constitutional right by introduction of Section 300 (A) of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:- “300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law:- No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.” 9. In the present case, the lands of the petitioner have been utilized by the Government for the public purpose. But till date, the land had not been acquired under the authority of any law whatsoever. This conduct of the respondents in depriving the valuable constitutional right of a citizen does not augur well. In the present case, the lands of the petitioner have been utilized by the Government for the public purpose. But till date, the land had not been acquired under the authority of any law whatsoever. This conduct of the respondents in depriving the valuable constitutional right of a citizen does not augur well. It is like the king robbing his subjects. I will not venture upon to direct handing over the possession of the property acquired for the simple reason that the same has been taken over by the Government for effecting the Golwarpatti Reservoir Scheme for the benefit of the agriculturists. But however, in view of the fact that the petitioner''s land has admittedly been taken over by the respondents without initiating any land acquisition, I direct the Government to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per annum as damages from the year 1990 till the date when they take over the property under authority of law. 10. The damages, calculating from 1990 till 2022, namely for a period of 32 years, shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The further payment of Rs.15,000/- for the further future period shall be paid on or before the 1st April of every year. This order shall be in force till the respondents acquire the land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner is also at liberty to approach for higher damages in future. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. However, there shall be no order as to costs.