Disposed

Veerapathira Chettiyar, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Feb 2018WP/2540/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging land acquisition notification for Ultra Mega Power Project. Court directed authorities to issue notices for award proceedings, apply Central Act 2013 compensation principles, and ensure 80% payment before disturbing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent to issue notices, pass award based on Central Act 2013 compensation principles, and not disturb petitioner until 80% compensation is paid.

Veerapathira Chettiyar, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 14.02.2018

¶3

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice N. SESHASAYEE

¶4

W.P.No.2540 of 2014 and W.P.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014, 1 of 2015

¶5

Veerapathira Chettiyar

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Energy Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Unit I,
Ultra Mega Power Project,
Cheyyur, Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Notification of the first respondent herein in G.O.Ms.No.48 (C1) Energy Department dated 17.04.2012 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Extraordinary Gazette No.102 of part II Sec.2 in so far as it relates to the petitioner's land is concerned of an extent of 0.75.0 Hectares in Survey No.209/1A and G.O.Ms.No.49 (C1) Energy Department dated 17.04.2012 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Extraordinary Gazette No.102 of part II Sec.2 of an extent of 0.39.0 Hectares in Survey No.214/3 and extent of 0.16.5 Hectares in Survey No.214/4A of No.54, Chitharkadu Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr. Akhil Akbar Ali, Government Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The case of the petitioner is that he owned agricultural lands of an extent of 0.75.0 Hectares in Survey No.214/2B, 0.39.0 Hectares in Survey No.214/3 and 0.16.5 Hectares in Survey No.214/4A of Kancheepuram District. The said lands along with others were proposed to be acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “Industrial Purposes Act”) for Ultra Mega Power Project at Cheyyur. Necessary notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 17.04.2012. The petitioner challenges the said notification on twin grounds:

¶13

a) That the mandatory personal notice under Section 3 (2) followed by an enquiry thereof under the Industrial Purposes Act was not complied in the manner contemplated by the statute and the District Collector was incompetent to issue the same.

¶14

b) That in view of the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013), any acquisition may have to be initiated only under the aforesaid Act.

¶15

Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, the learned Government Advocate entered appearance for the respondents. No counter affidavit is filed in this case. The learned Government Advocate submitted on instructions that in view of Section 105-A, which was inserted Vide Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Central Act 30 of 2013 read with Schedule-V, the acquisition was initiated under Industrial Purposes Act. He further added that the award is yet to be passed in this case which in terms of Section 105A too cannot be a derogation to the principles for quantifying the compensation under the Central Act 30 of 2013.

¶16

Section 105-A reads as follows:

¶17

“105-A. Provisions of this Act not to apply to certain Tamil Nadu Acts or to apply with certain modifications– (1) Subject to sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fifth Schedule.

¶18

(2) The State Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in

¶19

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

¶20

accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fifth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner now would respond that inasmuch as the Court has to presume the Constitutionality of Section 105-A of the Act for the present. The petitioner would be satisfied if an award would be passed instantaneous with the principles of quantifying the compensation conferable in terms of the Central Act 30 of 2013.

¶22

In view of the stands finally taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court modifies the prayer and directs the third respondent to issue notices to the petitioner to the address given in the Writ Petition to enable him to participate in the enquiry for passing the award and the said award shall be passed after granting an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶23

The third respondent shall take into account the principles of Central Act 30 of 2013 that provides for determining the compensation while passing the award. It is further directed that the respondent shall not disturb the petitioner till 80% of the compensation is paid.

¶24

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

mrr

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

¶30

The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Unit II ,
Ultra Mega Power Project,
Cheyyur, Kancheepuram District.
+1cc to Mr.AL.GANTHIMATHI, Advocate, S.R.No. 11419
W.P.No.2540 of 2014
TR(07/06/2018)

¶31

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

Veerapathira Chettiyar, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerapathira Chettiyar, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Kumaran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Asma Fathima Vs The Chief Secretry

Dolphin Construction Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.Elumalai Vs The District Collector

Veerapathira Chettiyar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

K.Devaraj Vs The District Collector