Allowed

J.Srinivasan v. P.Thiagarajan

Madras HC14 Dec 2015CONT P/1483/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition addressed a failure to refer compensation enhancement applications. The Court held that the 60-day limitation period began upon payment of compensation rather than the award date, validating the petitioners' filings. It directed a fresh reference under the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001, and dismissed the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector and Special Tahsildar to refer petitions to the competent court under Section 20 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 within two weeks. Closed contempt petitions.

J.Srinivasan Vs P.Thiagarajan — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATE: 14.12.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

Cont.P.Nos.1483 and 1484 of 2015

¶7

J.Srinivasan .. Petitioner in Cont.P.No.1483/15 2. K.Rajendiran .. Petitioner in Cont.P.No.1484/15 Versus Mr.P.Thiagarajan, Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam SIPCOT Road Expansion, Planning Scheme – Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram – 602 105. .. Respondents in both Cont.Petitions Prayer: These Contempt Petitions are filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the common order dated 28.02.2014 and made in W.P.Nos.4355 and 4672 of 2014.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Balasubramanian in both Cont.Ps. For Respondent : Mr.I.Arokiasamy in both Cont.Ps. Government Advocate C O M M O N O R D E R

¶9

Çonsidering the prayer made in W.P.Nos.4355 and 4672 of 2014 for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents therein to initiate action in accordance with law based on

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioners' representation dated 11.07.2013, after taking note of the averments made in both the writ petitions

¶11

¶12

and after ascertaining, this Court, tabulated the facts as

¶13

hereunder.

¶14

Name of the petitione r Lands acquired Compensat ion amount	Award No., and the date of award	Date of represent ation seeking reference Date on which, the represent ation has been
		forwarded to the special Tahsildar
J.Sriniva san (WP.4355/ 14) House site Plot No.46, approved layout in the name of “Kodai Kumaran Nagar” comprised in Rs.4,64,1 47/-	Award No.13/2 012 dated 31.5.20 12	11.07.201 3 12.08.201 3
S.No.404/8 B1C, measuring 2400 sq.ft., situated
at Vallam “A” Village, Sriperumpu dur Taluk, Kancheepur am District.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

¶17

Name of Lands Compensat Award Date of Date on
the acquired ion No., represent which,
petitione amount and the ation the
r date of seeking represent
award reference ation has
been
forwarded
to the
special
Tahsildar
K.Rajendi House site Rs.5,80,1 Award 11.07.201 12.08.201
ran Plot 84/- No.13/2 3 3
(WP.4672/ No.47, 012
14) approved dated
layout in 31.05.2
the name 012
of “Kodai
Kumaran
Nagar”
comprised
in
S.No.404/8
B1C,
measuring
2650
sq.ft.,
situated
at Vallam
“A”
Village,
Sriperumpu
dur Taluk,
Kancheepur
am
District

¶18

When the matter came up on 17.02.2014, Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents, to ascertain as to whether the petitioners have made any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applications, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking for reference. Subsequently, on 28.02.2014, on

¶19

¶20

instructions, from Mr.P.Thyagarajan, Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park, Sriperumpudur, present in the Court, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in both the cases, applications for reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, have been made within the prescribed time. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of competent jurisdiction, would be made within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed in the writ petitions.

¶21

Accordingly, vide common order dated 28.02.2014, in W.P.Nos.4355 and 4672 of 2014, directions have been issued to the respondents therein, to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, as assured.

¶22

Contending inter alia that the common order dated

¶23

28.02.2014 in W.P.Nos.4355 and 4672 of 2014, was not implemented, a contempt notice dated 29.08.2014, has been

¶24

issued by the petitioner to Mr.P.Thyagarajan, Special

¶25

Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park, Sriperumpudur, Kancheepuram District, for which, a reply in

¶26

Lr.No.RC.14/2010 dated 03.09.2014, has been issued by the

¶27

Special Tahsildar (LA) in-charge, Oragadam Industrial Park, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

Road Infrastructure Scheme @ Sriperumbudur, stating that a

¶29

¶30

review petition has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2014 based on the legal opinion of the learned Government Pleader, High Court, Madras in S.R.No.62216 and 62218 of 2014 dated 12.06.2014 and in the said circumstances, initiation of action for reference under Section 18 of the Act, does not arise. Thereafter, the present contempt petitions have been filed.

¶31

When the matter came up on 05.11.2015, this Court directed the learned Government counsel to take notice in the contempt petitions. Based on the averments made in the counter affidavits dated 08.12.2015, Mr.I.Arokiasamy, learned counsel for the respondent/alleged contemnor, submitted that proceedings for acquisition were initiated under the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶32

In the counter affidavit, the Special Tahsildar

¶33

(LA), Oragadam Industrial Park, Sriperumpudur, has submitted that an award under the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 was passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram in Award No.13 of 2012 dated 31.05.2012. Landowners/petitioners have received the compensation amount of Rs.4,64,147/- and Rs.5,80,184/- respectively on 21.06.2013, by way of cheque, under protest.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

¶36

Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park

¶37

Road Infrastructure Scheme @ Sriperumbudur, has admitted that the writ petitioners have submitted a petition on 11.07.2013, seeking for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the District Collector, Kancheepuram. She has further stated that the award was passed on 31.05.2012 and reference under Section 20 (i) of Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001, cannot be made, at this length of time, when there is an enormous delay of 460 days, in submitting the application for reference.

¶38

It is further stated that Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park Road Infrastructure Scheme @ Sriperumbudur, has erroneously informed this Court that the petitions dated 11.07.2013, for enhancement were submitted within the statutory time. It is further submitted

¶39

submitted that the District Collector has no authority to condone the delay, after 60 days.

¶40

as to whether the Award No.13/2012 dated 31.05.2012, passed

¶41

by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, was served on the petitioners, the answer was a clear 'NO', by which, it could

¶42

be inferred that only on 21.06.2013, when the petitioners

¶43

received a sum of Rs.4,64,147/- and Rs.5,80,184/-, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

respectively, under protest, they came to know about the

¶45

¶46

Award No.13/2012 dated 31.05.2012, determining the quantum of compensation, for the lands acquired from them, under the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001.

¶47

Admittedly, a petition dated 11.07.2013

¶48

submitted to the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, has been forwarded to the Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park Road Infrastructure Scheme @ Sriperumbudur,

¶49

vide proceedings in R.C.No.35008/2009/F2 dated 12.08.2013.

¶50

The above proceedings, is extracted hereunder.

¶51

mDg;g[eu; bgWeu; khtl;l Ml;rpau;. jdptl;lhl;rpau; (epv). khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; mYtyfk;. Xuflk; bjhHpw;g{';fh fh";rpg[uk;/ rhiy fl;likg;g[ jpl;lk; _bgUk;g[J}u;/

¶52

e/f/35008-2009-vg;2 ehs; 12/08/2013

¶53

ma;ah.

¶54

bghUs; epyvLg;g[ ? fh";rpg[uk; khtl;lk; kw;Wk; jpUg;bgUk;g[J}u; tl;lk; ? ty;yk; M fpuhkk; ?rp';fbgUkhs; nfhapy; Kjy; jpUg;bgUk;g[J}u; tiu?Rhiy mfyg;gLj;Jk; jpl;lj;jpd; f PH ; epyvLg;g[ bra;ag;gl;lJ bjhlu;ghf cau;j;jpa ,Hg;g P l ;Lj; bjhif nfhhp bgwg;gl;l kD bjhlu;ghf/

¶55

ghu;it kDjhuu;

¶56

jpU/ uhn$e;jpud;. brd;id kDehs; 11/07/2013

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

fh";rpg[uk; khtl;lk; kw;Wk; jpUg;bgUk;g[J}u;

¶59

¶60

tl;lk;. ty;yk; M fpuhkk;. Xuflk; bjhHpw;g{';fh rhiyfl;likg;g[ jpl;lj;jpw;fhf epyvLg;g[ bra;ag;gl;lJ bjhlu;ghf kWjhuu;fs; jpU/r Pdpthrd; vd;gtu; ru;ntvz;/404-8gp1rp tp!;j P uzk; 2400 rJuo epyg;gug;g[ mst [k;. jpU/ uhn$e;jpud; vd;gtu; ru;ntvz;/404-8gp1rp tp!;j P uzk; 2650 rJuo epyg;gug;g[k; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;L mjw;Fhpa ,Hg;g P l ;Lj; bjhif bgwg;gl;Ls;sjhft[k;. , e;neu;tpy; cau;j;jpa ,Hg;g P l ;Lj; bjhif nfhhpa[k; kDr;bra;Js;sdu;/ ,jd;k P J chpa eltof;if nkw;bfhz;L mjd; tptuj;ij kDjhuu;fSf;Fk;. ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;Fk; bjhptpf;FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhu;/

¶61

,izg;g[ kD mryhf

¶62

this Court that acquisition proceedings initiated were under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that therefore, reference

¶63

to the Court of competent civil jurisdiction, ought to have been made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus, when the matter came up for hearing on 17.02.2014,

¶64

Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader, had been directed to take notice and ascertain as to whether the petitioners have made any application under Section 18

¶65

of the Act, seeking reference and on instructions, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶66

submissions were made that applications for reference under

¶67

¶68

Section 18 of the above Act have been made within the prescribed time and that the same shall be referred to and accordingly a common order dated 28.02.2014 in W.P.Nos.4355 and 4672 of 2014 has been passed directing the respondents therein to refer the matter under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶69

Mistake has occurred due to the instructions of the 2^nd respondent viz., Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park Road Infrastructure Scheme @ Sriperumbudur. Though a common order was passed on 28.02.2014 and that a contempt notice was also issued on 29.08.2014, the Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park Road Infrastructure Scheme @ Sriperumbudur, has not come forward to seek for any clarification from this Court, regarding the mistake, which had crept in. As per Section 20 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, or the officer to whom the case was transferred,

¶70

determining the amount may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, in so far as it affects him, by

¶71

application to the Collector or the officer to whom the case

¶72

was transferred, require that the matter be referred by him for the determination of the Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and when any such application is made,

¶73

the provisions of part III of the said Act shall mutatis https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶74

mutandis apply to further proceedings in respect thereof.

¶75

¶76

Though, the award was passed on 31.05.2012, even

¶77

as per the version of Smt.P.Ramani, Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park Road Infrastructure Scheme, Sriperumbudur, present in the Court today, the same has not been served. Any person can be said to be aggrieved by the decision of the Collector of the officer to whom the case

¶78

was transferred determining the award, only on the date,

¶79

when he is put on notice or service of the award is completed, until then, he cannot be said to have been aggrieved. In such a view of the matter, this Court deems

¶80

it fit to hold that the petitioners can be said to have been aggrieved over the award/decision, only on the date, when they came to know about the passing of the award or in the case on hand, the date on which payment of compensation was made i.e., 21.06.2013 and as per Section 20 of the Tamilnadu

¶81

Highways Act, 2001 Act, it is always open to an aggrieved person to submit an application to the District Collector,

¶82

or the officer to whom the case was transferred, require that the matter be referred by him for the determination of the Court as defined, in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶83

In Land Acquisition Officer V. Shwabai reported

¶84

in 1997 (9) SCC 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the

¶85

computation of limitation period to seek reference begins to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶86

run from the date of serving notice to the claimant or the

¶87

¶88

date on which the claimant received the compensation.

¶89

In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., reported in AIR

¶90

2010 SC 1532, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the words,

¶91

"date of Collector's award", occurring in the provisio (b) to Section 18 refer to date of knowledge of essential contents of award, and not actual date of Collector's award. Application for reference filed on the date when appellants, claimants become aware of contents of award is maintainable.

¶92

This Court is of the view that the principle

¶93

underlined in the abovesaid decisions apply to all cases relating to acquisition of lands, payment of compensation and reference.

¶94

The Petitioners have submitted their

¶95

applications within 60 days of the date of knowledge of the

¶96

award, by which they were affected. Had Mr.P.Thiyagarajan, the then Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur brought to the notice of this Court that the acquisition proceedings were initiated only under the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001, appropriate directions would have been issued under Section 20 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 instead of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶97

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶98

¶99

In the light of the statutory provision, i.e., Section 20 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001, petitions dated 11.07.2013 are well within the statutory period of sixty days of knowledge of the award. It is true that the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram, has no discretion to condone the delay. However, on the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that there is no delay in submitting the petitions under Section 20 for reference to the Court of competent Civil Jurisdiction for determination of compensation.

¶100

In view of the order passed today clarifying the statute and the provision under which the petitions dated 11.07.2013 ought to have been referred, there shall be a direction to the District Collector, Kancheepuram and Smt.P.Ramani, Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Park Road Infrastructure Scheme, Sriperumbudur, to refer the petitions dated 11.07.2013 to the Court of competent Civil jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001. While making reference to the court of competent civil jurisdiction copy of the common order made in the present contempt petitions, be enclosed. Time for compliance of the order made in this contempt petitions is within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶101

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶102

¶103

With the above directions, both the contempt

¶104

petitions are closed. No costs.

¶105

ars

¶106

Sd/-
DEPUTY REGISTRAR(OS)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2016.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.
SS/CO/14/04/2016
One CC to Government Pleader, SR.15272
One CC to Mr.M.Balasubramanian, Advocate, SR.15289
To
1.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Oragadam SIPCOT Road Expansion,
Planning Scheme – Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram – 602 105.
3.Smt.P.Ramani,
Special Tahsildar (LA),
Oragadam Industrial Park,
Road Infrastructure Scheme,
Sriperumbudur,

¶107

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

J.Srinivasan v. P.Thiagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Srinivasan v. P.Thiagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs R. Saravanan

M/S. Hdfc Bank Limited Vs Mr. Thameem Ansari

M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs M. Mallikarjuna

The Roman Catholic Vs Mrs.D.Sabitha

S.Ubaidulla Vs Mrs Sabitha

The Law Debenture Trust Vs Sakthi Sugars Limited