Allowed

The Chairman,Neyveli Lignite v. Mr. Krishnamurthy

Madras HC4 Dec 2019AS/1239/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench allowed appeals filed by Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd against compensation decrees. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment, the Court held NLC not liable as it was not the requisitioning body and set aside Special Court judgments.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of the Special Court setting compensation are set aside; Appellant permitted to withdraw deposited amount.

The Chairman,Neyveli Lignite Vs Mr. Krishnamurthy — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04-12-2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

A.S.Nos.1239 to 1248 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015 [10 M.Ps] and M.P.No.2 of 2015 [9 M.Ps]

¶8

The Chairman Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli. ..Appellant in all Appeals/3^rd Respondent vs. 1.Mr.Krishnamurthy ..1^st Respondent in AS.1239/15/Claimants 2.Manickam ..1^st Respondent in AS.1240/15 3.Vasantha ..1^st Respondent in AS.1241/15 4.Arumugam ..1^st Respondent in AS.1242/15 5.Srinivasan ..1^st Respondent in AS.1243/15 6.Subramanian ..1^st Respondent in AS.1244/15 7.Rasangam ..1^st Respondent in AS.1245/15 8.Kaliyaperumal S/o.Vaithialingam ..1^st Respondent in AS.1246/15 9.Kaliyaperumal S/o.Rathinam ..1^st Respondent in AS.1247/15 10.Saminathan ..1^st Respondent in AS.1248/15 2.The Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) Jayamkondam Lignite Power Project, Jayamkondam.

¶9

3.The Executive Director, Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation(TIDCO) Egmore,

¶10

Chennai – 600 008 ..Respondents 2&3 in all Appeals/ 1 & 2

¶11

Respondents

¶12

Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to set aside the judgment and decree (1)dated 28.03.2014 and passed in L.A.O.P.No.153,160, 164, 167, 169, & 217/08 (in Appeals 1239 to 1244/05), on the file of the Special Court No.2, Jayamkondam, and (ii)dt.30.1.13 and made in LAOP.Nos.4608, 4604, 4606 and 4611/08 (in Appeal Nos.1245 to 1248/15) on the file of the Special Court No.1, Jayamkondam respectively.

¶13

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

¶14

For Appellant in : Mr.N.Nithianandam all the Appeals [in all A.S]

¶15

For Respondents ForR1: -No Appearance

¶16

[in A.S.Nos.1239 to 1241 of 2015 and 1243 to 1248 of 2015]

¶17

For R1:– M/s.S.MagaRani [in A.S.No.1242 of 2015]

¶18

For R2:– Mr.J.Bala Gopal

¶19

Special Government Pleader(AS) [in all A.S] For R3:– Mr.M.Vijayan For M/s.King & Partridge [in all A.S]

¶20

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶21

The issues involved in the First Appeals are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order. These First Appeals are filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Special Court, Jayamkondam in the following L.A.O.Ps:

¶22

L.A.O.P.Nos Dated Special IN A.S.Nos
Court
No.
L.A.O.P.No.153 of 28.03.2014 2 A.S.No.1239 of
2008 2015
L.A.O.P.No.160 of 28.03.2014 2 A.S.No.1240 of
2008 2015
L.A.O.P.No.164 of 28.03.2014 2 A.S.No.1241 of
2008 2015
L.A.O.P.No.167 of 28.03.2014 2 A.S.No.1242 of
2008 2015
L.A.O.P.No.169 of 28.03.2014 2 A.S.No.1243 of
2008 2015
L.A.O.P.No.217 of 28.03.2014 2 A.S.No.1244 of
2008 2015
L.A.O.P.No.4608 of 30.01.2013 1 A.S.No.1245 of
2008 2015
L.A.O.P.No.4604 of 30.01.2013 1 A.S.No.1246 of
2008 2015

¶23

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

¶24

L.A.O.P.Nos	Dated	Special Court No.	IN A.S.Nos
L.A.O.P.No.4606 of	30.01.2013	1	A.S.No.1247 of
2008			2015
L.A.O.P.No.4611 of 2008	30.01.2013	1	A.S.No.1248 of 2015

¶25

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the first instance, brought to the notice of this Court that the similar issues in respect of the same acquisition proceedings were concluded and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed a judgment on 27.08.2015 in A.S.Nos.233 to 239 of 2013 & etc., batch and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Paragraphs 18 to 23 are extracted hereunder:

¶26

“18.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the lands were not acquired for the benefit of the appellant at the beginning. The Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act, whatsoever, were not issued, showing the appellant as the requisitioning body. The original Notifications were issued only for the purpose of implementing the power project at the behest of TIDCO. As a matter of fact, TIDCO associated itself with a company by name McNally Bharath Engineering Company Limited and four other German companies as equity partners. This partnership gave birth to a new company called Jayamkondam Lignite Power Corporation Limited. If at all, any one could be called the requisitioning body, it could either be TIDCO or at least Jayamkondam Lignite Power Corporation Limited. NLC was nowhere in the picture from the year 1993 till the year 2004. NLC came into picture to rescue the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as well as TIDCO, which got caught into a project that became a nonstarter. But they have now become the victim.

¶27

19.The State of Tamil Nadu, by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16/97 inserted Section 25A into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Section starts with a nonobstante clause. This Section makes the compensation awarded in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, payable by the party for whom the acquisition is made. The acquisition in this case was not made for the benefit of NLC. NLC was roped in to save the State Corporation as well as the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, in no way, the liability can be fastened upon them.

¶28

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

¶29

20.However, bringing our attention to two more amendments made by the State of Tamil Nadu, one to Section 19 and another to Section 20, Mr.M.Vijayan, learned counsel for TIDCO contended that the appellant was dragged into the picture only because of the hopes that they gave and the agreements that they have entered into from the year 2005 up to the year 2012 when they finally withdrew from the picture. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the stand taken by the appellant that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

¶30

21.We have carefully considered the above submissions. Under Section 19(1) of the Act, the State of Tamil Nadu inserted clause (bb), which made it mandatory for the impleadment of the third parties, if the acquisition was not for the Government. Similarly, by the Amendment Act 14/90, clause (d) was inserted under Section 20 to enable the Court to serve notice upon all the parties for the benefit of whom, the acquisition was made. These amendments were necessitated in view of a controversy that was prevailing at that time as to whether the requisitioning body would have a right to be heard in the matter of determination of compensation at all.

¶31

22.But the fact that NLC was a necessary party, is different from the question as to whether they have any liability to pay the compensation or not. NLC was not the requisitioning body when the project was contemplated. It was roped in half way through when the joint venture floated by the Government failed and after Reliance Industries Limited backed out, after participating in the international competitive bidding. A person, who came to rescue the Government, cannot be made a victim. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be upheld.

¶32

23.In view of our finding that the appellant does not have any liability, the second question as to whether the quantum of compensation was correct or not is not answered by us.”

¶33

In view of the fact that the issues raised in these appeals are no more less integral. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench is to be followed in respect of these appeals as cited supra. Accordingly, as far as the appellants are concerned, the Judgment and decree passed by the Special Court, Jayamkondam in the following L.A.O.Ps are set aside:

¶34

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

¶35

L.A.O.P.Nos	Dated	Special Court No.	IN A.S.Nos
L.A.O.P.No.153 of 2008	28.03.2014	2	A.S.No.1239 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.160 of 2008	28.03.2014	2	A.S.No.1240 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.164 of 2008	28.03.2014	2	A.S.No.1241 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.167 of 2008	28.03.2014	2	A.S.No.1242 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.169 of 2008	28.03.2014	2	A.S.No.1243 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.217 of 2008	28.03.2014	2	A.S.No.1244 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.4608 of 2008	30.01.2013	1	A.S.No.1245 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.4604 of 2008	30.01.2013	1	A.S.No.1246 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.4606 of 2008	30.01.2013	1	A.S.No.1247 of 2015
L.A.O.P.No.4611 of 2008	30.01.2013	1	A.S.No.1248 of 2015

¶36

The appellant in these First Appeals is permitted to withdraw the amount, if any deposited at the time of admission of the First Appeal along with the interest accrued. Consequently, all the First Appeals stand allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

1.The Judge, Special Court No.2, Jayamkondam.

¶38

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

¶39

2.The Judge, Special Court 1, Jayamkondam.

¶40

3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court,Chennai.

¶41

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader,sr.101102.

¶42

+1 cc to M/s.T.S.Kanmani, Advocate,sr.101071

¶43

+2 cc's to Mr.N.Nithianandam, Advocate,sr.101580

¶44

krd 10/9 A.S.Nos.1239 to 1248 of 2015

¶45

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

The Chairman,Neyveli Lignite v. Mr. Krishnamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman,Neyveli Lignite v. Mr. Krishnamurthy

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

Re Palanisamy Vs Pykara Ultimate

V.Padmanabhan Vs G.Jayasree

Neduncheliyan Vs Minor Kaviya

V.Parthasarathy Vs Sussela

Karthikeyan Vs Datchinamoorthy

The Spl. Tahsildar (La) Vs Ponnusami Gounder